M/S PINEWOOD INFORMATION SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

Ld. A.R. for the assessee, has submitted that exparte orders in all these appeals was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and without considering the documents and records provided at the time of assessment u/s. 153A of the Act, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and against the principle of natural justice. In view of the above, he requested to set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We have also gone through the exparte orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and found that reasonable or adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) and also imposed the penalty u/s. 271AAA of the I.T. Act, 1961 to RS. 40,00,000/- without considering the documents and records provide at the time of assessment u/s. 153A of the Act, which in our opinion, is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is an erroneous approach. We also note that Ld. CIT(A) in other 06 appeals has passed the similar exparte order by following the facts and circumstances of the case of M/s Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2009-10). Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the files of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to produce all the evidences / documents, if any, before him to substantiate its case and did not take any unnecessary adjournment. In the result, the (AY 2010-11) is allowed for statistical purposes.

Since in all the other 06 appeals, similar facts are permeating, therefore, our finding given above in ITA No. 261/Del/2016 (AY 2010-11) in the case of Golf Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT will apply mutatis mutandis in other 06 appeals also, because the facts and circumstances of the case are exactly the same.

In the result, all the 07 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 19.12.2018.