Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K.PANDA
ORDER Per R.K.Panda, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31st March, 2017 of the CIT(A)-II, New Delhi relating to assessment year, 2011-12. 2. Levy of penalty of Rs. 8,93,535/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the ground of appeal
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company had not filed its return of income for the impugned 2 (JSD Steel (P) Ltd.) assessment year. In response to notice u/s 148 of the IT act was issued on 21st February, 2014, the assessee filed its return of income on 16 March, 2015 declaring income of Rs. 16,79,349/-. The AO computed the assessment u/s 143(3)/ 147 on a total income of Rs. 45,71,040/- by making addition of Rs. 28,91,688/-. Subsequently, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 8,93,535/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act which has been confirmed by the CIT(A).
4. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before Tribunal.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the quantum appeal is still pending before the CIT(A) and therefore, the order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is not proper. In his alternate contention, he submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A).
The ld. DR also fairly conceded that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue afresh after the quantum appeal is decided.
After hearing both the sides, I find the quantum appeal is still pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act before passing of the order in the quantum proceeding. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue afresh after the quanum appeal is decided. Needless to say the CIT(A) shall give due opportunity of being heard the assessee as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The 3 (JSD Steel (P) Ltd.) grounds raised
by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 27.09.2017)