Singhal Fastners Co., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-23(4), New Delhi

ITA 7409/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5605 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7409/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Singhal Fastners Co., 67-68, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 PAN no.AAACS1428H Vs ITO Ward- 23 (4) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Abhishek Mathur, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 30/03/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi dated 18.10.2018 for A.Y.2005-06. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 9 lacs levied by the AO u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 2 3. At the very outset the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No.7410/Del/2018 order dated 03.12.2021 and pointed out that this Tribunal in respect of the appeal against quantum addition has set aside the issue to the files of the AO. 4. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No.7410/Del/2018. This Tribunal in the said order has decided as under :- “6. We heard the submissions. In the light of the prayer of the Ld. Sr. DR we deem it appropriate to set aside the respective orders to ensure that the procedural violation etc alleged is addressed at the earliest. A perusal of the ground raised by the assessee shows that before the CIT(A), the assessee is seen to have agitated that the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GKN driveshaft reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC) has not been followed. Accordingly, considering the ground raised and the submissions we deem it appropriate to set aside the respective orders in both the appeals back to the file of the Assessing Officer to address the procedural deficit pointed out and thus pass an order in accordance with law after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose as per the pronouncement made in the open court via Webex at the time of hearing.” 5. Since the quantum addition has been set aside to the files of the AO, we deem it fit to restore this appeal to the files of the AO. 3 The AO is directed to decide the appeal afresh after deciding the assessment. The appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. 6. Decision announced in the open court in the presence of Ld. Sr. DR. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* Date:-30.03.2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Date of dictation 30.03.2022 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member 30.03.2022 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other member 30.03.2022 Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 30.03.2022 Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement 30.03.2022 Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/ PS 30.03.2022 Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT 31.03.222 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. The date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order 4