SH. BRIJ MOHAN GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4598/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 December 2016AY 2006-072 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine without following the statutory mandate. Considering the quantum appeal was set aside, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was filed. The assessee's counsel argued that the quantum appeal, which the penalty is dependent on, was set aside by the ITAT. The revenue did not object to this submission.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty appeal should be set aside to the CIT(A) when the related quantum appeal was set aside. Whether the CIT(A) followed the correct procedure in dismissing the appeal.

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

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-II’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 03.11.2016Pronounced: 16.12.2016

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 27.06.2016 of CIT(A)-12, New Delhi pertaining to 2006-07 AY on various grounds assailing the order wherein the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) has been upheld. The Ld.AR inviting attention to the order dated 21.06.2016 of the ITAT passed in the case of the assessee in the quantum appeal in submitted that the issue in the quantum appeal has been set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) as the appeal by the CIT(A) had been dismissed in limine. Accordingly, it was his prayer that since the penalty is dependent on the quantum order which has been set aside the present appeal may also be set aside to the file of the CIT(A). The said prayer was not objected to by the Ld. Sr. DR.

2.

Having heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, it is seen that the CIT(A) before passing of the order gives various opportunities to the assessee.

However, since ultimately the assessee did not appear, the appeal was dismissed. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del). The said procedure for deciding the appeal is not as per the statutory mandate as set out in sub-section (6) of Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

I.T.A .No.-4598/Del/2016 Brij Mohan Gupta vs ITO Page 2 of 2 Considering the fact that the quantum appeal has been set aside to the file of the CIT(A) which also had been dismissed in limine by the CIT(A), in these circumstances, considering the prayer of the Ld.AR, the impugned order is set aside and the issue is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and taking into consideration the fate of the appeal in the quantum proceedings.

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 →