Fruto Freesh Industries Pvt Ltd, New Delhi V. Addi. CIT Range-9, New Delhi

ITA 7279/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6485 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S S NAGAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 271D

Judgement Text

ITA NO.-7279/DEL/2019. FRUTO FREESH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: B: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO:- 7279/DEL/2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) M/S FRUTO FREESH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., 1102-D, PEARL BUSINESS PARK, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI-110034. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, NEW DELHI. PAN NO: AABCF3593K APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.S. NAGAR, C.A. REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR, SR.DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM (A) THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03.07.2019 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3, NEW DELHI, [IN SHORT, LD.CIT(A)] PERTAINING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE EX-PARTY ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ITA NO.-7279/DEL/2019. FRUTO FREESH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 2 OF 4 1.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE EX-ORDER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THE ORDER PASSE D BY LD. CIT(A) IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ILLEGAL AND NEED TO BE QUA SHED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT STATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 1,83, 50,000/- BY MODE OF PAYMENT OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFIED ON THE SAID SECTI ON. 2.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND GROSSLY ERRED BY NOT FOLLOWING THE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLA NT. 2.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY NEGLECT THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF PENALTY U/S 271D WAS PASSED AFTER EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN TERMS OF PROVISION OF SEC 275(1)(C). 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, M ODIFY RESCIND, SUPPLEMENT OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS STATED HERE IN ABOVE, E ITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. (B) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.07.2017; LEARNED ADDITIONAL CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LD. ADDL. CIT, FOR SHORT) LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 1,83,50,000/- UNDER SECTION 271D OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (I.T. ACT, FOR SHORT) FOR AL LEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS OF I.T. ACT IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S DIVYAR TH LEASING AND FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT( A). VIDE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03.07.2019, LD. CIT(A) PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER DISMISSING ASSESSEES APPEAL AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO NOTICES ISSUED BY L D. CIT(A). THIS PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (LD. AR, FOR SHORT) OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED BY LD. CIT(A) WERE NOT RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISPUTED ISSUE IN THIS PRESENT APPEAL MAY BE RESTOR ED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ITA NO.-7279/DEL/2019. FRUTO FREESH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 3 OF 4 FRESH ORDER, SO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AN OPPORTUNIT Y TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (LD. DR, FOR SHORT) FOR REVENUE WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF A SSESSEE. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO GAVE AN ASSURANCE THAT UNNECESSARY AND AVOIDAB LE ADJOURNMENT WILL NOT BE SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. (C) AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, AND AS BOTH SIDES AGREE TO THIS; WE RESTORE THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THIS PRESENT APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD . CIT(A) FOR FRESH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE LD. CI T(A) ON 25.02.2020 FROM 10 A.M. ONWARDS (WHICH WAS STATED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE TO BE CONVENIENT.) (D) IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/02/2020. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (ANADEE NAT H MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER DATED: 10/02/2020 POOJA/- COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO.-7279/DEL/2019. FRUTO FREESH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 4 OF 4 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