KALINGA CONDUITS & ELECTRICABLES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8089/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 August 2019AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment and substantiate its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income but did not comply with the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(b). The CIT(A) upheld the penalty in an ex-parte order as the assessee did not appear before him.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with statutory notices is justified, especially when the appellate authority passed an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. R. K. PANDA

For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07/08/2019Pronounced: 08/08/2019

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.08.2018 of the CIT(A)-5, Delhi relating to A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

Levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/-u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act by Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 28.05.2014 declaring total income of Rs.5,994/-. Since the assessee did not comply to the statutory notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 142 (1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act. Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) in the exparte order passed by him sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act. He submitted that in the interest of justice the matter may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.

6.

The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee is very casual in its approach and has scant regard to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. In the instant case the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly sustained the penalty levied by the AO and, therefore, the same should be upheld.

7.

I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Page | 2 Ld. CIT(A). It is an admitted fact that due to non appearance by the assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment under any pretext and substantiate its case failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.08.2019.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →