PANKAJ SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2539/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 June 2018AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow the mandatory procedure of mentioning points for determination and giving reasons for the decision. The dismissal was therefore unsustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assesses challenged penalty orders under Section 271(1)(b) before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals for non-attendance without deciding on merits or providing reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) order dismissing appeals for non-attendance without deciding on merits and providing reasons is valid. Whether the CIT(Appeals) followed the prescribed procedure for deciding appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI L.P. SAHUvs &

Hearing: 31.05.2018Pronounced: 01.06.2018

ORDER PER BENCH

All the appeals by two assesses are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-IV, Kanpur dated 07.03.2016 for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short called as the ‘Act’).

2.

After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires the consideration at the level of the Ld. CIT (A). The assesses have challenged the penalty orders before the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for above assessment years.

Assessees did not appear before Ld. CIT (A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of both the assesses in limine for non-attendance of the assesses. According to section 250(6) of the Act the Ld. CIT (A) while decided the appeals of assesses is required to mention point for determination in the order and reasons for decisions in the order. However, the Ld. CIT (A) did not mention point for determination in the impugned orders and also did not decide appeals of assesses on merits and has not given any reasons for decision in the impugned orders. Therefore, impugned orders of Ld. CIT (A) cannot be sustained in law. Even if the assessee did not appear before Ld. CIT (A), he is required to pass the orders on merits giving reasons for decision in the appellate order. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore all the appeals of the assesses to the file of Ld. CIT (A) with directions to re-decide all the appeals of both the assesses as per law or strictly on merits giving reasons for decisions in the order by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

All appeals of assesses are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.06.2018

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 →