MS. KAJAL KALRA,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, SAHARANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2970/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without clarity on whether the assessee was properly served and heard. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially filed a return of income, but the AO reopened the assessment due to non-disclosure of Long Term Capital Gain. The AO later levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of this income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A) without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.07.2016Pronounced: 29.07.2016

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.12.2013 of ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar.

2.

At the time of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. Therefore, the appeal has been disposed off after hearing the ld. Senior DR on merit. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2 Kajal Kalra 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 22.01.2010 declaring an income of Rs.1,84,340/-. Later on, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 14.06.2011, on the basis that the assessee had not shown Long Term Capital Gain. In response, the assessee filed the return of income on 08.09.2011 showing net total income of Rs.1,20,710/- besides Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,89,739/-. However, the assessment was framed by the AO at an income of Rs.3,16,450/- including Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,58,714/-. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO levied the penalty under the said section by observing that the assessee had not shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,85,740/- in the original return of income which was deliberately concealed. Accordingly, penalty of Rs.26,100/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the penalty by passing an ex-parte order. The ld. CIT(A) observed in the impugned order that in compliance to the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act, the assessee filed application for adjournments. However, it was not mentioned that those applications filed by the assessee were rejected. It is also not clear as to whether the notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable 3 Kajal Kalra opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and not to seek undue and unwarranted adjournments.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 29/07/2016)

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 →