SHRI RITESH SHOKEEN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. We, therefore, proceeded ex-parte and the appeals are decided after hearing the ld. DR on merit.

The grievance of the assessee in these appeals relates to the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the & 6222/Del/2014 2 Ritesh Shokeen Act) amounting to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.9,47,701/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Facts of the case in brief are that the AO levied the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act vide order dated 13.06.2011 for non-compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2011 fixing the case for hearing on 10.06.2011. The AO also levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the basis of addition of Rs.28,47,500/- made on account of unexplained cash deposited. The AO levied the penalty by passing ex- parte orders. Against those order, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A), since the appeals filed were belated, the assessee also moved application for condonation of delay the reason for delay in filing of appeals was stated to be negligence and carelessness of the ld. Counsel of the assessee and that all the notices issued by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings were handed over to Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, the Authorized Representative of the assessee for compliance but he did not attend the hearing.

However, the ld. CIT(A) without discussing the contents of the application filed by the assessee and without assigning any cogent reason for not accepting the application for condonation of delay confirmed the orders passed by the AO without discussing/deciding the issues on merit. The ld. CIT(A) simply stated that no appeal was filed by the assessee within the specified period of one month from receipt of the & 6222/Del/2014 3 Ritesh Shokeen assessment order, the same is evident from the observations given by the ld. CIT(A) at page no. 5 of the impugned order which is reproduced verbatim as under: “No appeal was filed by the appellant within the specified period of one month from the receipt of the assessment order by the appellant.” No other reason has been given by the ld. CIT(A) while confirming the orders of the AO.

From the above observations of the ld. CIT(A), it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) had mentioned the delay was there in filing the appeal from the receipt of the assessment order but nowhere it is mentioned that delay was thereafter receiving the penalty orders which were challenged before him. Moreover, he had also not discussed the contents and the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay, if any, by the assessee and also did not decide the issues on merit and confirmed the orders passed by the AO in slip-shod manner. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts, deem it appropriate to set aside these cases back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is made clear that the ld. CIT(A) should pass a speaking order for rejection or admission of the appeals filed by the assessee and if the appeals are admitted then those to be decided on merit. & 6222/Del/2014 4 Ritesh Shokeen 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 29/09/2017)