M/S. N.V. MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1990/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 April 2017AY 2004-053 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income, and the AO made additions for unexplained expenses and commission, initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly afforded an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-parte. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable without proper adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 26.04.2017Pronounced: 26.04.2017

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 20.12.2012 of ld. CIT(A)-XVI, Delhi.

2.

The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of penalty of Rs.28,70,620/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 01.11.2004 declaring an income of Rs.3,81,35,480/-. The AO however framed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on 24.12.2009 at an income of 2 N. V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Rs.4,62,87,380/- after making addition in respect of unexplained expenses amounting to Rs.78,45,000/- and commission amounting to Rs.1,56,900/-. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs.28,70,682/-.

4.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for non-prosecution in limine.

5.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

6.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) in the body of the impugned order has mentioned in Column No. 9 relating to date of hearing as Nil. It, therefore, appears that no opportunity of being heard to the assessee was provide by the ld. CIT(A). It is also noticed that the ld. CIT(A) in para 3.1 of the impugned order has mentioned that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 18.12.2013 but on the said date nobody was present nor any submission was made. However, he has not mentioned that the date of hearing was intimated to the assessee or the notice of hearing was served upon the assessee.

3 N. V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) had not afforded due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 26/04/2017)

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 →