Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) which upheld the assessment orders passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2008-09. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning significant delays in filing.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals due to delay but also discussed the merits, which is contrary to judicial discipline. The Tribunal found that the assessment and penalty proceedings were ex-parte. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with due opportunities.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning delay, and whether the proceedings were conducted in accordance with natural justice.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 271(1)(c), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
These two appeals filed by the assessee are against orders dated 22.06.2023 and 04.07.2023 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 27, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment orders dated 18.03.2016 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and dated 16.09.2016 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the appeals for the purposes of convenience were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The assessee was called absent in this case.
Aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) in dismissing its appeals qua orders u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and under section 271(1)(c), the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-27, New Delhi, failed to appreciate the fact that the company A.R Developer Pvt. Ltd was not in existence at the time when notice u/s 147/148 of the income tax act 1961 was issued in its name.
2. That the impugned Appeal Order is bad in law, illegal, and in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence.
3. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -27, New Delhi has erred in confirming the action with regard to reopening of Assessment u/s 147/148 and as such, proceeding u/s 147/148 is bad in law.
The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi, has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 39,37,70,000/• U/s 68 of the income tax Act 1961, which was received as advance against property.
That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 27, New Delhi, has not followed the law of natural justice while confirming the Order U/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Learned Assessing Officer without giving proper show cause notice and providing due opportunity to the appellant. ITA No.1050Del/2025
The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-27, New Delhi, failed to appreciate the fact that the company A.R Developer Pvt. Ltd was not in existence at the time when notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the income tax act 1961 was issued.
That the impugned Appeal Order is bad in law, illegal, and in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence.
3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 27, New Delhi, has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the penalty u/s of Rs.13,38,42,423/-on concealment of income of 39,37,70,000/- U/s 68 of the income tax Act 1961, which was received as advance against for property.
4. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 27, New Delhi, has not followed the law of natural justice while confirming the Order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Learned Assessing Officer without giving proper show cause notice and providing due opportunity to the appellant. 4. At the outset, we have noted that there was a delay of about three years and 2.5 years in filing appeals qua orders u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and under section 271(1)(c) before the ld. CIT(A). The final paras in both the appellate orders indicate that the ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal without condoning the delay in filing of the appeals. We have also noted that the ld. CIT(A) has given his findings on merits in the preceding parts of both the appellate orders. The approach thus adopted by ld. First Appellate Authority is not conformity with the judicial discipline. It is a matter of records that the assessment and the penalty proceedings were also concluded ex-parte on account of non-compliance by the assessee. Once the appeals were to be dismissed on their being filed late, no discussion on merits was maintainable. Page 3 of 5
5. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the twin appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication de novo after giving due opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to produce all the evidences deemed necessary in support of its defence. The ld. CIT(A) shall be required to conclude the twin proceedings within six months of the passing of this order. Any non-compliance at the end of the assessee may be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee in and are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06th January, 2026.