Ram Kumar Dhiamn, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-26(4), New Delhi

ITA 6450/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2939 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 271B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6450/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh. Ram Kumar Dhiamn, B-145, Opp. Nehru Place, New Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward-26(4), New Delhi PAN :AIEPD2121R (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 31.05.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- XXVI, New Delhi, confirming the penalty imposed under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) confirming penalty imposed under section 271B of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16. Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19.09.2022 Date of pronouncement 26.09.2022 ITA No. 6450/Del/2019 AY: 2015-16 2 | P a g e 2. When the appeal was called for hearing non-appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. 3. On perusal of record, it is observed, notice of hearing issued to the assessee on the given address through speed-post has returned back unserved with the postal remark “left”. In view of above, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned departmental representative and based on materials available on record. 4. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of assessee’s appeal challenging the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act ex-parte on the allegation that the assessee was seeking repeated adjournments and did not bother to file any written submission and explanation in respect of grounds raised in the appeal. Though, we do not question the Commissioner (Appeals)’s power to dispose of the appeal ex-parte in case of repeated non-appearance or unnecessary adjournments being sought by the assessee, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) is expected to decide the appeal on merits backed by proper reasoning. However, on a perusal of the observations of learned ITA No. 6450/Del/2019 AY: 2015-16 3 | P a g e Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraph (C) of the impugned order, it is evident, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalty imposed without providing any reasons for doing so. To say the least, the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on merits is cryptic, non-speaking, and bereft of any reasoning at all. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to his file for de-novo adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26 th September, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26 th September, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi