Om Prakash Bansal & Sons, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle 49(1), New Delhi

ITA 1256/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2222 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1256/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 OM PRAKASH BANSAL & SONS, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 49(1 ), 1/32, WHS, KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 15 (PAN: AABF00584C) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 31.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-17, NEW DELHI R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX U/S 271 (1)( C) OF THE ACT AND UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS GROSSLY AR BITRARY, VOID AND BAD AT LAW AS THE APPELLANT SUO MOTO OFFER ED THE INCOME OF RS. 5,25,000/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO MEET OUT THE LEVEL OF INCOME OVER AN D ABOVE THAT AMOUNT OF SURRENDERED AT THE TIME OF SUR VEY ULS 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 2. THE ALLEGATION OF THE LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE FIRST APPELLAT E 2 AUTHORITY ARE GROSSLY ARBITRARY, BASELESS AND BAD A T LAW AS THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF ANY MATERIAL FACTS B Y THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED ULS 139 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE APPELLANT TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. HENCE, THE APPELL ANT CAN NEVER BE SAID TO HAVE ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE HON'BLE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IMPOSING THE PENALTY ULS 271 (L)( C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF RS. 1,62,225/- WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED ; AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW AS THE RE WAS NO FINDING AGAINST THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY ARE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WI THOUT GIVING A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO T HE APPELLANT TO PRESENT ITS CASE. 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALT ER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3 TAX EFFECT RELATING TO ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROU NDS OF APPEAL IS RS. 1,62,225/-. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT . KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AN D THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, I AM OF THE VIEW TH AT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND A GAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, I AM DECIDING THE PRESENT APP EAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 3. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 4. I HAVE THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AVAI LABLE WITH ME ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTENTION RAISED IN TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NO T GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF TH E FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AR E SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SA ME AFRESH, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS AND GIVE AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRE CTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSAR Y ADJOURNMENT AND FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM. 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20/11/2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 20/11/2019 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 5