M/S GUPTA METAL SHEET (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-Central, Gurgaon, dated 14/11/2013 for A.Ys 2008-09 and 2009-10.

The assessee has raised the following identical grounds of appeal in both the appeals:

At the very outset of the hearing of the arguments, the ld. AR submitted that the AO was not justified in coming to a haste and arbitrary conclusion without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without making any efforts to enquire and ascertain the evidence placed on record. The ld. AR also submitted that the bald conclusion against the assessee without any objective reasoning is against the principles of natural justice. The ld. AR further strenuously submitted that the CIT(A) was not at all justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee when the assessee never received the notice of hearing dated 11.11.2013 and which was never served upon the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AR contended that the CIT(A) ought not have confirmed the penalty of Rs 16,72,386/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in A.Y 2008-09 and Rs.37,52,977/- in AY 2009-10.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record before us. We find from the orders of the authorities below that the issue under consideration has not been decided by the AO in a proper manner and facts have not been appreciated in a judicious manner. We further find that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) have passed their respective orders without affording any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. On the basis of foregoing discussion and careful perusal of the operative part of the ld. CIT(A)’s conclusion, it is amply clear that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in haste by passing a cryptic order without giving the assessee opportunity of being heard, which is not sustainable. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) has also not properly considered the submissions and facts of the case and simply followed the AO’s conclusion and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) too has not given due opportunity of being heard to the assessee which is clear from the fact that the assessee has not even received the notice of hearing. The ld. DR has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). However, he raised no serious objection if the appeal is restored to the file of the AO. Therefore, in that view of the matter, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the AYs to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention that the CIT(A) shall provide due and proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee without being prejudiced with the earlier impugned order. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the AYs are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.