Shri Ritesh Shokeen, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6221/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4208 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. KULDIP SINGH , JM ITA NO. 6221 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008 - 09 ITA NO. 6222 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008 - 09 SH. RITESH SHOKEEN, H. NO. 1, VILL. NILOTHI, NANGLOI, NEW DELHI - 110041 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(4), NEW DELHI - 110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. BHMPS2299P ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. DEEPAK GARG , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 28 .09 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 . 0 9 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE SEPARATE ORDERS EACH DATED 27.08 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - XXIV , NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEEDED EX - PARTE AND THE APPEALS ARE DECIDED AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR ON MERIT . 3 . THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS RELATES T O THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ITA NOS. 6221 & 6222 /DEL /201 4 RITESH SHOKEEN 2 ACT) AMOUNTING TO RS.10,000/ - AND RS.9,47,701/ - U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/ - U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 13.06.2011 FOR NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.06.2011 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 10.06.2011. THE AO ALSO LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT, ON THE BASIS OF ADDITION OF RS.28,47,500/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED CASH DEPOSITED. THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY BY PASSING EX - PARTE ORDERS. AGAINST THOSE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), SINC E THE APPEALS FILED WERE BELATED, T HE ASSESSEE ALSO MOVED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL S WAS STATED TO BE NEGLIGENCE AND CARE LESSNESS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT ALL THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE HANDED OVER TO SH. ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA, THE AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE BUT HE DID NOT ATTEND THE HEARING. 5. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE AP PLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY CONFIRMED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO WITHOUT DISCUSSING/DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERIT. THE LD. CIT(A) SIMPLY STATED THAT NO APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM RECEIPT OF THE ITA NOS. 6221 & 6222 /DEL /201 4 RITESH SHOKEEN 3 ASS ESSMENT ORDER , THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE OBSERVATIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE NO. 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED VERBATIM AS UNDER: NO APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM THE RECEIPT OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE APPELLANT. NO OTHER REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE AO. 6 . FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD MENTIONED THE DELAY WAS THERE IN FIL ING THE APPEAL FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT NOWHERE IT IS MENTIONED THAT DELAY WAS THERE AFTER RECEIVING THE PENALTY ORDERS WHICH WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE HIM . MOREOVER, HE HAD ALSO NOT DISCUSSED THE CONTENTS AND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN IN THE A PPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, IF ANY, BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERIT AND CONFIRMED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO IN SLIP - SHOD MANNER . WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE T HESE CASES BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD PASS A SPEAKING ORDER FOR REJECTION OR ADMI SSION OF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE APPEALS ARE ADMITTED THEN THOSE TO BE DECIDED ON MERIT. ITA NOS. 6221 & 6222 /DEL /201 4 RITESH SHOKEEN 4 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (O RD E R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29 /0 9 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( KULDIP SINGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 29 /09 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REG ISTRAR