Mr. Sunil Bakht, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1162/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97843 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: RUCHI KHURANA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHS, DELHI G BENCH BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRIA.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1162 /DEL/201 5 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 10 ] SHRI SUNIL BAKHT V S. AC IT , CIRCLE 24(1) E - 7/3 NEW DELHI. VASANTH VIHAR , NEW DELHI. (PAN : AAGPB 1371 H ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MS. RUCHI KHURANA REVENUE BY : SHRI K.K. JAISWAL, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 9.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 9.11.2015 O RDER P ER N.K. SAINI, A M : - THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) - 13 , NEW DELHI DATED 23 . 0 1 .201 5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 1 0 . 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ] LEVIED BY THE AO. - 2 - 3. DURING THE COURSE OF H EARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY OF RS. 5 2,060/ - . HOWEVER, THE PENALTY HAS ALSO BEEN LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE INCOME WHICH WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN THE COMPUT ATION OF INCOME AND DUE TAX WAS PAID ON THAT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE SAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 4. THE LD. DR, IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO, HOWEVER, COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE BY BRINGING ON RECORD ANY COGENT MATERIAL. 5. W E HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS ISSUE DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH SINCE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN LEVIED NOT ONLY ON T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BUT ALSO ON THE INCOME WHICH WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTO IN THE RETURNED INCOME . IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND - 3 - REMAND THE CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRE SH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 1 9 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. S D / - S D / - (A.T. VARKEY) (N.K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 1 9 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 VL/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT 2 . THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI