Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA
Date of hearing : 01-08-2018 Date of pronouncement : 01-08-2018 O R D E R
PER R. K. PANDA, AM :
The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 10.01.2018 of CIT(A)- 27, New Delhi relating to assessment years 2005-06 & 2007-08 respectively. Since identical grounds have been taken by the assessee in the grounds of appeal
for both the years, therefore, these were heard together and being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. The assessee in both the appeals challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee for non-prosecution and thereby sustaining the penalty of Rs.12,600/- for assessment year 2005-06 and Rs.10,780/- for assessment year 2007-08 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 additions 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 correct income in the return, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.12,600/- for assessment year 2005-06 and Rs.10,780/- for assessment year 2007-08 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 for delay and non-appearance and accordingly 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 appeals, 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 her 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 appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 01st August, 2018.