Jai Kumar, Delhi V. CIT(A)-38 , New Delhi

ITA 1226/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5399 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARUL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH GOYAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1226/DEL/2019 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14] JAI KUMAR, VS. CIT(A)-38, B-6/135, SECTOR-8, NEW DELHI ROHINI, DELHI 85 (PAN: ANFPK0238G) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY:SHRI SATISH GOYAL, CA REVENUE BY: MS. PARUL SINGH, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS-38], NEW DE LHI DATED 24.1.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS BEING CHALLENGED ON FACTS AND LAW, FOR CONFIRMING THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 93793/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE IN EXCESS OF RS. 20000/- U/S. 40A(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, AND ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF EPF AMOUNTING TO RS. 54671/-. 2. THAT THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 40A(3) BEING MADE UNDER THE DEEMING PROVISIONS, THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1) IS NOT ELIGIBLE ON THE SAME. 3. THAT IN ANY CASE THE ADDITION OF RS. 54671/- ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF EPF HAVING BEEN DELETED 2 BY THE CIT(A), NO PENALTY ON THE SAME CAN BE LEVIED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. PRAYER FOR AY CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF AND / OR LEGAL CLAIM AR ISING OUT OF THIS APPEAL AND FOR ANY ADDITION, DELETION, AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE IMPUGNED ORDER WI THOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. H E REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I AM SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HERD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.1 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE NON-COOPERATION OF THE A SSESSEE, I AM DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO APPEA R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 23.04.2020 AT 10.00 AM FOR HEARING. THERE IS NO NEED TO ISSUE THE NOTICE BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESS EE, SINCE THIS ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT . 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19.02.2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:19-02-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASST. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI 4