HAMILTON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4673/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 October 2017AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09. The assessee did not appear for hearings, with notices being returned as 'Refused'.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunities to the assessee. The validity of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also in question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM:

These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the common order dated 12.5.2015 of Ld. CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2007-08 & 2008-09. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2 The following are the common grounds raised in both the appeals:- i) The assessment order of the AO is bad both in law and facts of the case. ii) That the AO is not justified in imposing penalty against the company u/s. 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee company had furnished inaccurate particulars despite the fact that all the details were furnished at the time of assessment proceedings and nothing was concealed therefrom. iii) The assessee company craves the right to alter, amend, add, delete or modify any of the grounds raised in the appeal.

3. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

4. In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, which was returned back with the postal remarks “Refused”. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, we are deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

5.

Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and requested that the same may be upheld.

6.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records especially the impugned order. After perusing the aforesaid records, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order against the principles of natural justice by way of exparte order in not providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice, the issues involved in these appeals needs to be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh pass a speaking order thereon, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, the Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) and produce all the documents before him to substantiate its claim and not to take any unnecessary adjournment.

7.

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04/10/2017.

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 →