M/S. NOBO SHOE CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 274/DEL/2010Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 June 2017AY 1991-924 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order, even if the assessee does not cooperate. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's books of accounts were rejected during assessment due to defects, and despite a previous ITAT order to re-examine, the assessee failed to produce them. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, noting the assessee's lack of interest.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal without passing a reasoned order, and the assessee's failure to produce books of accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH - ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18//05/2017Pronounced: 06/06/2017

Per BHAVNESH SAINI, Judicial Member ORDER

1.

Both the appeals by assesse are directed against different years of Ld. CIT(A) XVI New Delhi dated 6.11.2009 for asstt.

Year 1991-92 and dated 9.11.2009 for asstt. Year 1991-92 challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the I.T. Act.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that originally assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 29th March, 1994. During the course of that assessment proceedings , AO pointed out several defects in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee and Page 1 of 4 ,275/Del/2010 Nobo Shoe Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO accordingly same were rejected. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee took the plea of labour unrest due to which books of accounts could not be produced before AO but the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee. The matter travelled to ITAT vide its order dated 3rd July, 2006 restored the matter back to the file of the AO with direction to decide the matter afresh with direction to assessee to produce the books of accounts. The AO in view of the above directions of the Tribunal taken up the assessment proceedings afresh . However the assessse did not produce the books of accounts. Therefore income was assessed at Rs. 3,48,530/-. Assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) noted that the matter is adjourned many times on the request of assessee but assessee failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. Therefore, it was noted that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore appeal of assessee is dismissed.

3.

Same is the position in the penalty matter and in default of the assessee Ld. CIT(A) similarly noted that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore levy of penalty was confirmed and appeal of assessee has been dismissed. Page 2 of 4 ,275/Del/2010 Nobo Shoe Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4. After considering rival submissions we are of the view matter requires re consideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A).

According to section 250 (6) of the I.T. Act, Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned order even if assessee appears before him or not. May be the conduct of the assessee is not proper in not cooperating the Ld. CIT(A) but Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass the order in accordance with law giving reasons for decisions in the appellate order. In this view of this matter, we set aside both the impugned orders and restore both the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with direction to redecide both the appeals of the assessee in accordance with law by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assesse and AO. Ld. CIT(A) shall pass the reasoned order in accordance with law. Both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result both the appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the Open Court.

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 →