ARCHIT SECURITIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7997/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an ex parte order of the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The original assessment involved an addition of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and a subsequent penalty of Rs. 44,82,582/- under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The need to provide a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &, Ms Subhi Goyal, CA
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.05.2019Pronounced: 13.05.2019

Assessment Year: 2005-06 Archit Securities P. Ltd., Vs. ITO, 26A, Sadhna Enclave, Ward-2(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACA7849J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms Subhi Goyal, CA Revenue by : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2019 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order dated 13th April, 2016 passed by the CIT(A)-32, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2005- 06.

2.

Levy of penalty of Rs.44,82,582/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29th 3. October, 2005 declaring the total income of Rs.3,24,055/-. On the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee company has made transactions with M/s Tarun Goel & Associates group companies/firms which was detected during the search proceedings u/s 132 and it was noted that the group was providing accommodation entries in the shape of share capital/share premium, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3)/148 on 15th March, 2013 determining the total income at Rs.1,25,74,055/- wherein he made an addition of Rs.1,22,50,000/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.44,82,582/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, the CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by her, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

4.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising various grounds.

5.

I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance, the ld.CIT(A), relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) and various other decisions, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. However, she has not decided the appeal on merit. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in 2 the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and explain its case failing which the CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 13.05.2019.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →