HAZORILAL & SONS JEWELLERS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4059/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 August 2016AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the assessee's request for a fresh hearing to be genuine, as the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law and against principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity due to the hospitalization of their counsel. The revenue argued that the assessee was non-cooperative.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty and dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-3’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CA

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 19.5.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2005-06 on the following grounds:-

1.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding levy of penalty on the appellant by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs 1,76,269/-.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the act of AO of treating inadvertent bon fide small mistake by appellant as furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealing particulars of its income.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the error incurred by appellant of not disallowing a small amount of Rs. 1,13,583/- on account of loss on sale of asset and donation of Rs. 62,686/- in the computation of income was not wilful in the context when returned income was of Rs. 33,74,600/- and assessed income was Rs. 35,50,870/-.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in denying the appellant request for adjournment in the matter on account of hospitalization of appellant counsel and passing exparte order for the reason that none attended.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant.

6.

Appellant craves for grant of permission to add, amend, modify, delete or withdraw any ground of appeal at or any time before the hearing of the appeal.

2.

The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. A.R. of the Assessee stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the Appeal filed by the assessee exparte without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He requested that the issue in dispute may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, under the law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee. He further undertakes on behalf of the assessee that he will fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings and ensured that he will not take any unnecessary adjournment.

4.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the sufficient opportunity has been given to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), but assessee remained non- cooperative. Therefore, he requested that the impugned order may be upheld.

5.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the order of the First Appellate Authority. I am of the considered view that the request made by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee seems to be genuine, because the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is exparte order, without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving full opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10/08/2016. Sd/-

[H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER Date 10/08/2016 “SRBHATNAGAR”

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 →