M/s. Excel Infotech Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6225/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9872 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 13

Judgement Text

ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 1 OF 28 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: B: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS:- 6225 TO 6229/DEL/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 TO 2011-12) M/S EXCEL INFOTECH LTD., 910, ANSAL BHAWAN, 16 K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI. PAN NO: AAACE2098K APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, CIT(DR) PER BENCH [A] THESE FIVE APPEALS (ITA NOS.- 6225/DEL/2016, 6226/ DEL/2016, 6227/DEL/2016, 6228/DEL/2016 AND 6229/DEL/2016) HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.09.2016 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-31, NEW DELHI, [IN SHORT, LD. CIT(A)] PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, AND 2011- 12 RESPECTIVELY. THESE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE AND BREVITY; AND ARE HEREBY DISPOSED OFF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER . GROUNDS TAKEN IN THESE APPEALS ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 2 OF 28 OF ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 2,26,170/- AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISD ICTION AS PER LAW AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 2,26,170/- U/S 271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY STAGE AND ALL THE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. ITA NO.- 6226/DEL/2016 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 11,79,944/- AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASS UMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 11,79,944/- U/S 271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY STAGE AND ALL THE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. ITA NO.- 6227/DEL/2016 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 26,75,872/- AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASS UMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 26,75,872/- U/S 271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 3 OF 28 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY STAGE AND ALL THE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. ITA NO.- 6228/DEL/2016 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 17,67,296/- AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASS UMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 17,67,296/- U/S 271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY STAGE AND ALL THE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. ITA NO.- 6229/DEL/2016 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 17,67,296/- AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASS UMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 17,67,296/- U/S 271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY STAGE AND ALL THE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 4 OF 28 [B] THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED CON SOLIDATED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.09.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 5 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 6 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 7 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 8 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 9 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 10 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 11 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 12 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 13 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 14 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 15 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 16 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 17 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 18 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 19 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 20 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 21 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 22 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 23 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 24 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 25 OF 28 ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 26 OF 28 [C] THESE PRESENT APPEALS HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED CONSOLIDATED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.09.2 016 OF THE LD. CIT(A). AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, REVENUE WAS REPRESENTED BY MS . NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE) [LD. CIT(DR), FOR SHORT]. HOWEVER, NONE WAS PRESENT FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE. A HEARING WAS EARLIER FIXED ON 25.11.2019 ALSO, AND EVEN ON THAT DATE NONE WAS PRE SENT FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM ASSESSEES S IDE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, WE HEARD THE LD. CIT(DR); WHO RELIED UPON THE A FORESAID IMPUGNED CONSOLIDATED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.09.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED SPEA KING ORDER ON MERITS. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPH [B] OF THIS ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIV EN DETAILED REASONS FOR HIS DECISION ON MERITS IN THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED CONSOLIDATED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.09.2016 OF LD. CIT(A). DURING APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT, FOR SHORT) NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION TO PERSUADE US TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERE NT FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON MERIT. AFTER HEARI NG THE LD. CIT(DR) AND AFTER PERUSAL OF MATERIALS ON RECORD, AND FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED CONSOLIDATED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.09.2016 OF LD. CIT(A), AND ACCORDINGLY, THESE APPEALS ARE DISM ISSED. [D] BEFORE WE PART; WE EXPLICITLY CLARIFY THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH ITAT FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPEALS IN ACC ORDANCE WITH PROVISO TO ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 27 OF 28 RULE 24 OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL), RULES, 1963. IF THE ASSESSEE DOES APPROACH ITAT FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPEALS I N ITAT, THE MATTER WILL BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. [E] IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON (K.N. CHARY) (ANADE E NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER DATED: POOJA/- COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO.- 6225/DEL/2016 AND OTHERS. EXCEL INFOTECH LTD. PAGE 28 OF 28 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