SANJEEV GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(8), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2494/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 July 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must pass a speaking order on merits. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271D for accepting cash exceeding the prescribed limit, violating Section 269SS. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution due to lack of cooperation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case, and whether natural justice was violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS,Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Hearing: 22.06.2023

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 23.08.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. The CIT (A) had passed order without giving the opportunity of being heard. As the assessee & his authorized person was effected by the COVID-19 that time.

2. The CIT (A) passed the order without taking the natural justice into consideration and passed the order which is bad in law.

3. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty order and dismissing the appeal filed before him.”

./2022 3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act amounting to Rs.4,16,666/- being cash accepted on sale of plot/property. On assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that despite several opportunities, assessee has not turned up. Since there was no cooperation on the part of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) applied Multiplan and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

4.

Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

5.

We note that section 251 of the Act does not empower the ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. It is incumbent upon the ld. CIT (A) to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case. Accordingly, we remand the issue to the file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of July, 2023.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →