SMT. SHASHI MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 117/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 February 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessees, there was a possibility of communication gaps between the taxpayers and their counsel, especially with the introduction of faceless/hybrid hearings. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore all the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities for the assessees to plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders lacked substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires framing points of determination and detailed discussion. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard eight appeals filed by two assessees, Shri Om Sai Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Om Sai Infravision Pvt. Ltd., for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The appeals challenged orders passed by the CIT(A) which affirmed the Assessing Officer's action in levying penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAC1 of the Income Tax Act. The assessees were not represented before the ITAT, and the proceedings were conducted ex-parte. The CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessees, affirming the penalties without substantive adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should restore the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, given that the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte against the assessees, potentially due to communication gaps in the new faceless/hybrid hearing system. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded as the assessee was not represented. Revenue's Contention: The learned CIT(A)'s findings are correct, and the assessees had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting their case; therefore, the appeals deserve to be dismissed. The revenue relied on the CIT(A)'s ex-parte adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271AAC1,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

Hearing: 13.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

ORDER Per Bench: The instant batch of eight appeals involves twin assessees herein, namely, Shri Om Sai Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Om Sai Infravision Pvt. Ltd. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under: to 113/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd. to 117/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai Infravision Pvt. Ltd. Sl. A.Y. ITA Nos. Appellant Respondent Order passed Proceeding No. against s u/s 1. 2014-15 110/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai DCIT CIT(A), Delhi-23, 271(1)(c) Infrapromoters DIN & order No. Pvt. Ltd. ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2024-25 / 1070216020(1) Dated 08.11.2024 2. 2015-16 111/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai DCIT CIT(A), Delhi-23, 271(1)(c) Infrapromoters DIN & order No. Pvt. Ltd. ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2024-25 / 1070216357(1) Dated 08.11.2024 3. 2017-18 112/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai DCIT CIT(A), Delhi-23, 271AAC1 Infrapromoters DIN & order No. Pvt. Ltd. ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2024-25 / 1070216111(1) Dated 08.11.2024 4. 2018-19 113/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai DCIT CIT(A), Delhi-23, 271AAC1 Infrapromoters DIN & order No. Pvt. Ltd. ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2024-25 / 1070216527(1) Dated 08.11.2024 5. 2014-15 114/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai DCIT CIT(A), Delhi-23, 271(1)(c) Infravision Pvt. DIN & order No. Ltd. ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2024-25 / 1070215145(1) Dated 08.11.2024 6. 2015-16 115/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai DCIT CIT(A), Delhi-23, 271(1)(c) Infravision Pvt. DIN & order No. Ltd. ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2024-25 / 1070215401(1) Dated 08.11.2024 7. 2017-18 116/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai DCIT CIT(A), Delhi-23, 271AAC1 Infravision Pvt. DIN & order No. Ltd. ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2024-25 / 1070215637(1) Dated 08.11.2024 8. 2018-19 117/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai DCIT CIT(A), Delhi-23, 271AAC1 Infravision Pvt. DIN & order No. Ltd. ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2024-25 / 1070215737(1) Dated 08.11.2024

2.

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessees behest.

They are accordingly proceeded ex-parte. to 113/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd. to 117/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai Infravision Pvt. Ltd.

3.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessees thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action levying the corresponding penalty(ies) herein. Nor do we find any substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring the learned CIT(A) to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.

4.

Mr. Chand vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessees had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case and therefore, their instant appeals deserve to be dismissed.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view that since the CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessees, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer(s) and the arguing counsel involving the newly introduced system of faceless/hybrid hearings, could not be altogether ruled out.

6.

Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessees all instant appeals back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate to 113/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd. to 117/Del/2025 Shri Om Sai Infravision Pvt. Ltd. adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayers shall plead and prove the case at their own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

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 →