ATS Meadows Private Limited, New Delhi V. Addi. CIT Range-76, New Delhi

ITA 1854/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6492 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1854/DEL/2020 [A.Y 2017-18) M/s ATS Meadows (P) Ltd. Vs. The Addl. CIT 711/92, Deepali, Nehru Place Range - 76 New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAFCP 7179 R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 30, New Delhi dated 30.04.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 2. The grievances of the assessee read as under: “1. That the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 271C was incorrect, bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That the assessed income by the Assessing Officer in the quantum proceedings is highly disputable and penalty levied on such amount is debatable as there is so much of doubt on the nature of present addition, also due to which the CBDT has issued clarification in relation to the same. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied without looking into the merits of the case. 3. That the payment by the appellant to the HUDA is not liable to TDS as the same was in the statutory payment under the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 4. That the Assessing Officer was wholly unjustified and grossly erred in framing the order u/s 271C of the Act without any specific show cause to the appellant company and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We decided to proceed ex-parte. The ld. DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused. 3 4. We find that though the ld. CIT(A) has referred to five notices issued to the assessee, but none of the notices was attended which forced the ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal in limine. 5. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case and moreover, though the ld. CIT(A) has referred to the dates of issue of notices, but nowhere has mentioned that the notices were actually served upon the assessee at the given address. 6. In the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits of the case after serving a proper notice and affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1854/DEL/2020 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 16.08.2022. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 16 th August, 2022. 4 VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Date of dictation Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order