AMARJIT MEHTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to participate and present evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) to ensure substantive justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) which upheld penalty orders under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The assessee failed to appear or file submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) despite opportunities.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be deprived of substantive justice due to non-filing of submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) despite opportunities granted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The captioned appeals are filed by assessee against the separate orders, both dated 30.03.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No.10337/2017-18 and 10564/2018-19 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of penalty orders, both dated 21.09.2022 passed u/s 271D of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively.
At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. However, the Revenue is represented by Ld. Sr.DR who supports the orders of lower authorities and requested for the confirmation of the same.
Heard the contention of Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the appellate orders, it is seen that Ld. CIT(A) has provided several opportunities to the assessee however, the assessee failed to file any submission, thus the Ld. CIT(A) was compelled to confirm the additions made by the AO. It is true that assessee has not filed any submission before Ld. CIT(A) in support of the grounds of appeals taken but due to that reason alone, assessee should not be deprived of substantive justice. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the same in accordance with law after providing the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate before the Ld. CIT(A) and file all the necessary evidences in support of the grounds of appeal taken in the appeals. With these directions, grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.12.2025.
More judgments on Section 271D
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Veera Mani Kumari Vattikooti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 1218/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026