RAJ KUMAR WADHWA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2614/DEL/2023Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 November 2023AY 2011-12Bench: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not mention if the assessee was given an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 138 days, which was condoned. The appeal challenged a penalty of Rs. 53,050/- levied under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) before confirming the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 09.11.2023Pronounced: 10.11.2023

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi dated 14.10.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The grounds of appeal filed by assessee, which reads as under: “1. Because of no reason opportunity has been provided to the appellant to explain is case.

2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in confirming penalty of Rs.53,050/- under section 271B of the IT Act, 1961.

3.

That the appellant company reserve the right to file details/more grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

Raj Kumar Wadhwa vs. ITO 2 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is delay of 138 days in filing the appeal. The reasonable cause for delay has been attributed to the misplacement of the file. Upon careful consideration, the delay in this case is condoned. In this case penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was levied amounting to Rs.53,050/-. Assessee filed appeal before learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by holding as under :

“7. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the gross turnover of Rs 15,49,991/- has exceeded the prescribed limit that the assessee is not falling in the exclusion of provisions of maintaining the books of accounts as per provisions of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee has clearly violated the provisions of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act when the turnover of the assessee is exceeding minimum limit provided under the said provisions. It is a clear case of non compliance of the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of bonafide explanation the penalty levied u/s 271B is justified. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error or illegality in the orders of the authority. Therefore, I do not intend to interfere with the order of the AO. Penalty of Rs.53,050/- u/s.271B of the Act stands confirmed Ground No.1 is Dismissed.”

4.

Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

In the ground of appeal, the first issue raised as that proper opportunity has not provided to the assessee to explain the case. A perusal of the learned CIT(A)’s order shows that there is no mention that the assessee was given an opportunity to canvas the case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit this issue to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.

Raj Kumar Wadhwa vs. ITO 3 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.11.2023

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →