Pawan Kumar Goel, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 7667/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5682 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Non compliance; Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.7667 & 7668/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SH. PAWAN KUMAR GOEL, 126, ANAJ MANDI, WRIGHT GANJ, GHAZIABAD PAN NO.ABUPG1198G VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (1) GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. L. ANURAGI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 01/08/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/08/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 28.9.2018 OF THE CIT(A), NEW DELHI RELATING TO A. Y. 2014-15. 2. FIRST APPEAL IS REGARDING THE QUANTUM APPEAL AND THE SECOND APPEAL IS REGARDING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF HEARING. IT WAS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AS WELL AS ORDERS OF CIT(A) ARE EXPARTE ORDERS. I, THEREFO RE, PROCEED TO DECIDE BOTH THESE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON PAGE | 2 RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING O F BUILDING MATERIAL AND GENERAL ORDER SUPPLIER. HE FILED HIS R ETURN OF INCOME ON 28.09.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3 ,47,600/-. SINCE THERE WAS NON COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT DETERM INING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.38,52,400/-. TH EREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.10,03,000/- U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT. 5. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE PENALTY LEVIED BY HIM U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, SINCE THERE WAS NON APPEARANCE BEFO RE HIM, LD. CIT(A) IN HER SEPARATE EXPARTE ORDERS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED THE PEN ALTY LEVIED U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE EXPARTE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE PENALTY SO LEVIED. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY LD. DR. A PER USAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) FOR WHICH HUGE ADDITION H AS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN SUSTAINED B Y THE PAGE | 3 CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) THERE WAS A DELAY O F MORE THAN 3 MONTHS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESS EE EXPLAINED THE REASON OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM WHICH WAS DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF THE PREVIOUS COUNSEL, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT NO REAS ONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL HAS BEEN GI VEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HER THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE CASUAL IN NATURE FOR WHICH SHE DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS NONEST. 8. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CAS E AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE O NE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CAS E AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALS O HEREBY DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EXPLAIN HIS CASE FAILING WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AT LIBE RTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF QUANTUM ADDITION IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. SO FAR AS THE PENALTY APPEAL IS CONCERNED SINCE THE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PENALTY DOES NOT SURVIVE. HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS AT LIBERTY TO INITIATE AFRESH PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE SET ASIDE PROCE EDINGS. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. PAGE | 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.08.2019. SD/- (R.K PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:- 08.08.2019 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 08.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 08.08.2019 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 REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER