Rakesh Gupta, New Delhi V. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 6333/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2231 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANGEETA YADAV
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 271(1)(c); 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA Nos.6331 & 6333/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2007-08) Shri Rakesh Gupta, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 19, C – 3/28-29, Sector 15, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN : AJAPK4533H) ITA No.6339/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) Shri Vishesh Gupta, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 19, C – 3/28-29, Sector 15, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN : AGJPG0058P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date of Order : 02.03.2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM : The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate impugned orders of even dated 14.12.2016, passed by the ld. 2 ITA Nos.6331 & 6333/Del./2018 ITA No.6339/Del./2018 CIT(A)-20, New Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2007-08 in the case of Rakesh Gupta and AY 2008-09 in the case of Vishesh Gupta. 2. In all the appeals, the assessee has challenged levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the ld. CIT (A) has passed an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits on the ground that none appeared on behalf of the appellant in all the aforementioned appeals. 3. Before us, grounds no.1 & 2 raised by the assessee in form no.36 apart from penalty on merits which read as under :- “1. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and not justified because Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal simply on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the appellant without appreciating the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), (2016) 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), where it has been held that law does not empower ld. CIT (A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. 2. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO ignoring the fact that the assessment order of the AO in the quantum proceedings was altered by the CIT(A) in a significant way and the Ld. CIT(A) has not initiated penalty proceedings on the additions made in substitution of the old addition. In absence of initiation of penalty proceedings during appeal, the penalty order based on finding of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and without jurisdiction.” 3 ITA Nos.6331 & 6333/Del./2018 ITA No.6339/Del./2018 4. Even before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the appeals of the assessee need to be decided on merits and, therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the ld. CIT (A) and remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT (A to decide on merits after considering the entire material on record and also give sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his case. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the hearing of the appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced on 2 nd day of March, 2022. Sd/- sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 02.03.2022 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-20, New Delhi. 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.