VELVET APPLE HOTELS P.LTD,DELHI vs. ADD,CIT, RANGE-51, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2292/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 October 2023AY 2011-12Bench: the AO. He undertook to cooperate at the level of AO. 3. Ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any serious objection to this proposition. 4. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of AO. AO shall give an opportunity to the assessee of being heard and pass a speaking order on merits of the case. 5. In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of October, 2023. sd/- (YOGESH 3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and pass a speaking order on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against penalty orders for non-furnishing or late furnishing of TDS statements. The assessee's counsel argued that the orders were ex-parte and requested an opportunity to present their case before the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied for non-furnishing or late furnishing of TDS statements was justified, considering the assessee's claim of reasonable cause and the ex-parte nature of the original orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(2)(k)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT DR, Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.10.2023

Date of Hearing : 05.10.2023 Date of Order : 09.10.2023

ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-41, New Delhi all dated 21.11.2016 for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12.

2.

Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :-

2 to 2292/Del./2018 “1. That the order passed under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 21.11.2016 is bad in law and on facts.

2. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming penalty amounting of Rs.9,84,300/- u/s 272(2)(k) of the Act without considering the fact that there was reasonable cause for non-furnishing or late furnishing of TDS statement for the impugned Assessment Year.

3. That the penalty of Rs.9,84,300/- levied by ld. AO has exceeded the amount of tax deducted of Rs.6,54,500/- as against the first provision of Sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act.”

3. At the outset, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the AO and ld. CIT (A) has passed an ex-parte order after noting that assessee did not appear despite notices. Ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to canvass the case properly before the AO. He undertook to cooperate at the level of AO.

3.

Ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any serious objection to this proposition.

4.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of AO. AO shall give an opportunity to the assessee of being heard and pass a speaking order on merits of the case.

5.

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of October, 2023.

More judgments on Section 272A(2)(k)

All 249 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(k) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →