MIDWAY PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2385/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 November 2018AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had ignored the assessee's reply filed on 02.05.2016. To ensure justice and fair play, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee contended that the penalty was levied ex parte without considering their reply. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had both passed ex parte orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied without considering the assessee's reply, leading to an ex parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Gupta, CA
Hearing: 27.11.2018

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-15, Delhi dated 29.01.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by the Assessing Officer.

3.

At the very outset, the ld. AR of the assessee stated that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty by an ex parte order without considering the reply filed by the assessee on 02.05.2016.

4.

The ld. AR further pointed out that even the first appellate authority has confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer by an ex parte order

5.

I have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below as well as the penalty order dated 13.09.2016. Though the Assessing Officer has mentioned that a show cause notice was issued and served upon the assessee on 29.03.2016 requesting the assessee to furnish its reply dated 28.04.2016, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee neither furnished any reply nor gave any information. On the contrary, I find that on 02.05.2016, the assessee had filed a reply in response to the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It appears that the Assessing Officer has completely ignored this reply of the assessee, which is exhibited at pages 5 to 7 of the paper book. In my considered opinion, the Assessing Officer should have considered this reply of the assessee. The first appellate authority has simply confirmed the levy of penalty.

6.

In the interest of justice and fair play, I deem it fit to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide this issue afresh after giving reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to file necessary details before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer will decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2018.

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 →