MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. JCIT, RANGE-75, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/455/2019HC DelhiDLHC01021310201924 October 2019Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal failed to adjudicate all grounds raised by the appellant and did not provide its own findings, merely agreeing with the CIT(Appeals) order. It was imperative for the Tribunal to deal with the appellant's submissions, even summarily, and reject them with disclosed reasons.

What were the facts?

The appellant's appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) raised several grounds and submissions. The ITAT recorded these submissions in detail but did not specifically deal with them in its decision, instead extensively quoting the CIT(Appeals) order.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT failed to adjudicate all grounds and provide its own findings, and whether it considered submissions related to penalty imposition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~18. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 455/2019

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. P. Roychaudhuri, Advocate.

versus

JCIT, RANGE-75, NEW DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R % 24.10.2019

We have heard learned counsels.

The following questions of law arise for our consideration: “ Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in law and in the facts in failing to adjudicate all the grounds raised by the appellant before the Appellate Authority.

Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) without giving its own finding?

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, while dealing with the appellant’s appeal has considered and dealt with the submissions advanced by the appellant in relation to the imposition of penalty under Section 271C of the Act.”

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has recorded in detail in paragraph 5 of the said order the several submissions advanced

by the appellant. The Tribunal went on to even take note of the several decisions on which the appellant placed the reliance. However, while rendering its decision, the Tribunal has not specifically dealt with the submissions that it recorded in paragraph 5 of its order. The Tribunal has extensively quoted from the order of the CIT (Appeals) with which it agrees. Even where the Tribunal agrees with the CIT (Appeals), in our view, it was imperative for the Tribunal to deal with, even if summarily, the submissions advanced before it by the appellant and to reject the same for disclosed reasons. Unfortunately that does not appear to have happened in the present case. We, therefore, answer the questions in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned order. We remand the appeal back to the Tribunal for re-hearing and a fresh decision uninfluenced by the impugned order. We, however, make it clear that we have not examined the appellant’s pleas on merits.

The party shall appear before the Tribunal on 08.01.2020.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J OCTOBER 24, 2019 B.S.Rohella

More judgments on Section 271C

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →