ARUN MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL,DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The dismissal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds of appeal was unsustainable in law.
What were the facts?
The assessee school failed to deduct tax at source on salary payments, leading to a penalty order under Section 271C. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution without a decision on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. Whether a reasoned order is mandatory even when the assessee fails to appear.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271C,Section 201(1)/201(A),Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI O.P. KANT
ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: The present appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-41, New Delhi, dated 27.01.2015 pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09 in relation to penalty u/s 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), raising following grounds of appeal:
1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, New Delhi has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.84,811/- levied by the Joint Commissioner, Range-49, New Delhi u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act. During the proceedings jurisdiction/office of honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, New Delhi, was changed and the assessee has nor receive the notice for personal hearing due to which could not be able to represent the case before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).
The appellant may be permitted to add, delete, amen or substitute all or any of the grounds of appeal
at or before the date of hearing.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that due to non-deduction of tax at source of Rs.84,811/- on salary paid by the assessee, order u/s 201(1)/201(A) of the Act was passed on 15.06.2007 holding the assessee-in-default. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 21.10.2010 & 04.04.2011 were issued u/s 271C of the Act for levy of penalty for non-deduction of tax at source. After taking into account submission of the assessee, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-49, New Delhi, levied penalty of Rs.84,811/- vide order u/s 271C dated 25.04.2011. The assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) noted that several notices have been issued to the assessee for hearing of the appeal. However, the assessee sought adjournment and did not submit any response to the statutory notices issued for disposal of the appeal. Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of any representation from the side of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Hence, the appeal is before the ITAT.
3. We have heard both the parties and perused the findings of the authorities below. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal and, therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is required to be set aside for adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised before Ld. CIT(A) on merits. 3.1 After considering rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires re-consideration at the level of Ld. CIT(A). According to Section 250(6) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination in the appellate order and reasons for decision while disposing the appeal of the assessee. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not decide the appeal of the assessee on merit and without giving reasons for decision, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Thus, the order of Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained in law. Further, even if the assessee did not appear before Ld. CIT(A), he is required to pass the order on merits giving reasons for decision in the appellate order.
4. In view of the above discussion, since Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the reasoned order on merits, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to re-decide the appeal of the assessee on merits strictly as per law. Ld. CIT(A) shall pass the order on merit giving reasons for decision in the appellate order by giving reasonable & sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the AO.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 30th July, 2018.
More judgments on Section 271C
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Jagadish Panchal, Udaipur vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 314/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Teampumkin Corporation, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer (TDS)-2(3)(2), MumbaiITA 5318/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Teampumkin Corporation, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer (TDS)-2(3)(2) Mumbai…ITA 5281/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6199/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026