BALWAN SINGH YADAV, REWARI V. ITO, WARD -1, REWARI

ITA 7401/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5587 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH.BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.7401/DEL/2017 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08] ASSESSEE BY SH. LALIT MOHAN, CA DEPARTMENT BY MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 22.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.05.2018 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ROHTAK DATED 18.08.2017 FOR AY 2007-08, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT ACT). 2. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT APPEAR BEFORE LD.CIT(A) IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND NO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS H AVE BEEN FILED. LD.CIT(A) DID NOT PASS THE ORDER ON MERIT AND DID NOT GIVE RE ASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS VIOLATI VE OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT, THUS, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE REFERRED TO P.B. 42A & 47A WHICH ARE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO B EFORE LEVY OF THE PENALTY. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE N OTICES ARE BAD IN LAW BALWAN SINGH YADAV, C/O-M.L.GULATI, ADV., 230-NAI ANAJ MANDI, REWARI, HARYANA. PAN-AAEPY8486G VS ITO, WARD-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MODEL TOWN, REWARI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.7401/DEL/2017 BECAUSE IT IS NOT RECORDED IN NOTICE AS TO UNDER W HICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, PENALTY HAVE BEEN INITIATED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THE A SSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY PLEA BEFORE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE, MATTER MAY BE RE MANDED BACK TO LD.CIT(A) FOR DECIDING AFRESH. 4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT T HAT ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY CONTENTION BEFORE LD.CIT(A) TO CHALLENGE THE PE NALTY ORDER AND THAT LD.CIT(A) PASSED UNREASONED ORDER, THEREFORE, THE M ATTER REQUIRES RE- CONCILIATION AT THE LEVEL OF LD.CIT(A). I, ACCORDI NGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO RE- DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STRICTLY IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* DATE:-22.05.2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) CONCERNED 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO.7401/DEL/2017