NIRMAL MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 17, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1355/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 August 2018AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay, considering the assessee's old age and illness. The CIT(A) was instructed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution, leading to the sustainment of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was initiated due to additions made by the Assessing Officer for failure to submit a rent agreement.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the reasons for delay and deciding the penalty issue on merit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, CA
For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr.DR

Assessee by : Shri Anil Chopra, CA Department by : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 01-08-2018 Date of pronouncement : 01-08-2018 O R D E R

PER R. K. PANDA, AM :

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.01.2018 of CIT(A)- 27, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The assessee in this appeal has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal filed by him for non-prosecution and thereby sustaining the penalty of Rs.24,530/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. After hearing both the sides, I find the Assessing Officer in the assessment order made certain addition on account of income from house property, since the assessee failed to submit the rent agreement for the purpose of determining the fair rental value of the property. The ld. CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee and the Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has failed to disclose the correct income in the return, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.24,530/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Since there was delay in filing of the appeal and there was non-appearance, the ld. CIT(A) applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another reported in 118 ITR 461 and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 dismissed the appeal and sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Since the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit and has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and has not condoned the delay in filing of the appeal, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay which was due to his old age and illness and decide the appeal on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the ld. CIT(A) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. I hold and direct accordingly. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 01st August, 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 →