MR. ROHIT NARANG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3480/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 October 2016AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both the assessment and penalty orders were passed ex-parte without properly dealing with the assessee's contentions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to a notice under section 153C, leading to an ex-parte assessment and penalty. The assessee contended they were not served notice and were non-resident, but these arguments were not addressed by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was validly imposed when the assessment and penalty proceedings were ex-parte and the assessee's contentions regarding notice and residency were not addressed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Singh, Accountant
For Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.10.2016Pronounced: 14.10.2016

These five appeals by the assessee arise out of the common order passed by the CIT(A) on 31.3.2016 confirming penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 & 2011-12.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts for the assessment year 2006-07 are that notice u/s 153C was issued for filing the return of income, which was not responded by the assessee. Since no details were available and the case was getting time barred, the AO completed assessment u/s 144 of the Act, determining total income at Rs.20,24,620/-. In the like manner, the assessee remained unrepresented before the AO during penalty proceedings. As a result of that, penalty of Rs.6,25,386/-, being 100% of the amount of tax on the addition of Rs.20,24,620/-, was imposed.

The assessee argued before the ld. CIT(A) that it was not served with any notice and, further, it was not resident in India. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept this contention and confirmed the penalty imposed for assessment year 2006-07. The assessee is aggrieved against such penalty.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that not only the assessment order, but, even the penalty order was also passed ex parte. The assessee’s contentions that no notice was served and that further he was not resident in India have not been dealt with by the authorities below. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO for a fresh decision as per law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is common submission by both the sides that facts and circumstances of the other years are, mutatis mutandis, similar to those of assessment year 2006-07. Following the view taken hereinabove, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of AO for a de novo adjudication of the penalty after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open court on 14.10.2016.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →