S P PROJECTS, NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 33(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 1028/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves S. P. Projects, a company based in New Delhi, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Ghaziabad, for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention in the appeal was the alleged improper dismissal of their previous appeal concerning a penalty order under section 271 of the Income Tax Act. The original assessment had made an addition of Rs. 67,63,148 due to discrepancies in reported receipts. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds that no penalty order under section 271 had been issued against the assessee, a fact confirmed by the Assessing Officer during the proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108484 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 1028/Del/2018 S. P. Projects, New Delhi. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1028/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) M/s. S. P. Projects, H. No. 3-126, 2 nd Floor, (Near Kali Badi) Bengali Colony, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi – 110 045. PAN No. ABQFS0162G ( APPELLANT ) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward : 33 (3), New Delhi. ( RESPONDENT ) ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.11.2017 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 (hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) Ghaziabad, for assessment year 2014-15. Assessee by : N o n e; Department by: Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. D. R.; Date of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 14.02.2023 2 ITA No. 1028/Del/2018 S. P. Projects, New Delhi. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal :- “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 2. That the order passed by the CIT(A) is without affording adequate opportunity and is violation of principal of natural justice. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 67,63,148/-. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred holding that appeal is defective and not maintainable. 5. On the fact and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not determining the appeal on the merit and dismissing it on technical ground.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment order came to be passed against the assessee by making an addition of Rs. 67,63,148/- as there was difference of receipts as per AIR/26AS as reported in the ITR of the assessee. The Ld. A.O. has also ordered for initiating separate penalty proceedings u/s 271B and another separate penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act. As per the assessee a penalty order dated 04/07/2016 came to be passed by levying penalty of Rs. 25,88,300/- therefore an appeal came to be filed by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) against the order passed u/s 271 of the Act. During the appeal proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) has verified from the A.O. and found that no penalty order u/s 271 of the Act has been passed against the assessee, therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 3 ITA No. 1028/Del/2018 S. P. Projects, New Delhi. 4. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the appeal dated 08/08/2016 the assessee has filed the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 5. None appeared for the assessee even after issuing notices to the registered address of the assessee which were returned with an endorsement ‘no such person’. Therefore, we deem it fit to decide the matter after hearing the Ld. DR and on verifying the material on record. 6. It is observed that the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) aggrieved by the ‘penalty order passed u/s 271 of the Act’. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal after ascertaining the fact from the A.O. that no penalty order u/s 271 of the Act has been passed in the said case for the year under consideration. Therefore, the assessee cannot have any grievance against the revenue, thus we do not find any reason to entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on : 14/02/2023 . Sd/- Sd/- ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 14/02/2023 *R.N, Sr. PS* 4 ITA No. 1028/Del/2018 S. P. Projects, New Delhi. Copy forwarded to :- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI