Sanjeev Gupta, Delhi V. ITO, Ward-29(8), New Delhi

ITA 2494/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sanjeev Gupta against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which pertained to the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary issue was the penalty levied under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for violation of section 269SS, where cash amounting to Rs.4,16,666 was accepted for the sale of a plot/property. The CIT (A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's non-cooperation, which was contested in the ITAT. The ITAT found that the CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without addressing the merits and not providing a fair hearing to the assessee, who was affected by COVID-19 at the time.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113953 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 271D; 251

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2494/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18) Sanjeev Gupta, vs. ITO, Ward 29 (8), 513, Mehrauli, South West Delhi, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 030. (PAN : AHKPG3403G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 22.06.2023 Date of Order : 10.07.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 23.08.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. The CIT (A) had passed order without giving the opportunity of being heard. As the assessee & his authorized person was effected by the COVID-19 that time. 2. The CIT (A) passed the order without taking the natural justice into consideration and passed the order which is bad in law. 3. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty order and dismissing the appeal filed before him.” ITA No.2494/Del./2022 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act amounting to Rs.4,16,666/- being cash accepted on sale of plot/property. On assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that despite several opportunities, assessee has not turned up. Since there was no cooperation on the part of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) applied Multiplan and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 4. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. We note that section 251 of the Act does not empower the ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. It is incumbent upon the ld. CIT (A) to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case. Accordingly, we remand the issue to the file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10 th day of July, 2023. sd/- sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 10 th day of July, 2023 TS ITA No.2494/Del./2022 3 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (A) 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.