Crosslay Remedies Ltd, New Delhi V. DCIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

ITA 4804/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2810 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 4804/DEL/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDIC IAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4804/DEL/2019 ( A .Y 2014-15) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFEREN CING) CROSSLAY REMEDIES LTD. A-14, PUSHPANJALI, VIKAS MARG EXTENSION NEW DELHI AACCC4239Q (APPELLANT) VS DCIT CIRCLE-6(2) C. R. BUILDING, I. P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. ATUL NINAWAT, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. VIPUL KASHYAP, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 19/3/2019 PASSED BY CIT(A)-2, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ['LD. CIT(A)'] U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT'), CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF INR 19,21,920/-LEVIED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ('LD. AO') U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY AFFIRMING THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND BY PASSING THE ORDER IN HASTE, WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLA TION OF THE PRINCIPALS OF NATURAL JUSTICE DATE OF HEARING 18.11.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25.11.2020 2 ITA NO. 4804/DEL/2019 3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACT S OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, WITHOUT EVEN ME NTIONING WHETHER PENALTY IS PROPOSED FOR 'CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME' OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' 4. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO IMPOSING THE PENALTY FOR FURNI SHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO ITS CLAIM 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THA T THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED ON ADDITIONS MAD E IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON DEBATABLE/VEXED LEGAL ISSUES. 6. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACT S OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO IMPOSING THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS PER EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTI ON 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE WHEN PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE CONCEALED 7. ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 3. THE LD. AR VIDE LETTER DATED 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2020 RECEIVED THROUGH EMAIL STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED TO SETTLE THE DI SPUTE RELATING TO THE TAX ARREARS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER THE DIRECT TAX VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME, 2020. FORM NO. 1 AND 2 F ILED WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO ATTACHED TO THE SAID LETTER. TH EREFORE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE ADJOURNED. 4. WE HAVE SEEN THE LETTER DATED 17.11.2020 ALONG W ITH FORM 1 AND 2 FILED WITH INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. CONSIDERING THE AFORESA ID SITUATION, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THIS DISMISSAL OF APP EAL IS SUBJECT TO A CAVEAT 3 ITA NO. 4804/DEL/2019 THAT IN CASE THE DISPUTE RELATING TO TAX ARREARS FO R THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS NOT ULTIMATELY RESOLVED IN TERMS OF THE AFORESAI D SCHEME, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR REINSTIT UTION OF THE APPEAL AND THE TRIBUNAL SHALL CONSIDER SUCH APPLICATION AS PER LAW . THE REVENUE HAS NO OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THE AFORESAID CAVEAT. 5. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 . SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER DATED: 25/11/2020 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO. 4804/DEL/2019