LANDMARK APARTMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI V. ADDL.CIT (TDS),RANHE 75, DELHI

ITA 2525/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Landmark Apartments (P) Ltd., the appellant, contesting penalties imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-75, New Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16. The penalties were initially challenged on grounds of being barred by limitation and for procedural lapses by the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without merit discussion. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits and remanded the case for a thorough examination of the limitation issue and the substantive merits of the penalties imposed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471477 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Mahesh Wood Case
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GIREESH KUMAR KOHLI
• Assessee Lawyers: VAIBHAV GOEL
• Section: 143(3); 43

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH- - - -E E E E : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, , , , VICE VICE VICE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT AND AND AND AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, , , , ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ITA No ITA No ITA No ITA No.2525 .2525 .2525 .2525/Del/202 /Del/202 /Del/202 /Del/2024 4 4 4 Assessment Y Assessment Y Assessment Y Assessment Year : 20 ear : 20 ear : 20 ear : 2015 15 15 15- - - -16 16 16 16 M/s Landmark Apartments (P) M/s Landmark Apartments (P) M/s Landmark Apartments (P) M/s Landmark Apartments (P) Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., A A A A- - - -8, C.R. Park, 8, C.R. Park, 8, C.R. Park, 8, C.R. Park, New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi – – – – 110 019. 110 019. 110 019. 110 019. PAN : AABCL2120Q. PAN : AABCL2120Q. PAN : AABCL2120Q. PAN : AABCL2120Q. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Additional Commissioner of Additional Commissioner of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Income Tax, Range Income Tax, Range Income Tax, Range- - - -75, 75, 75, 75, New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vaibhav Goel, CA. Respondent by : Shri Gireesh Kumar Kohli, Sr.DR. Date of hearing : 1 1 1 13 3 3 3.1 .1 .1 .11 1 1 1.2024 .2024 .2024 .2024 Date of pronouncement : 13.11 13.11 13.11 13.11. . . .2024 2024 2024 2024 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER Per Mahavir Singh Per Mahavir Singh Per Mahavir Singh Per Mahavir Singh, Vice , Vice , Vice , Vice President President President President : : : : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC in appeal No.41/10528/2019-20 dated 21st March, 2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year 2015-16 under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The penalty order under Section 271C, 272A(2)(k) and 272A(2)(g) of the Act was passed by Additional CIT, Range-75, New Delhi vide order dated 24th December, 2019. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee stated that there is a legal issue that the penalty order under Section 271C, 272A(2)(k) and 272A(2)(g) is barred by limitation. He also raised the issue that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in-limine for non-prosecution without going into the merits of the case and simplicitor for non-prosecution. For this, the assessee has raised the relevant grounds as under :- ITA No.2525/Del/2024 2 “1. That, on facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 24.12.2019 made by Addl. Commissioner of Income tax, Range-75, is barred by limitation having been passed after the expiry of time limit laid down u/s 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; That, the date of initiation of penalty is to be reckoned from the date of making reference by the ITO Ward 75(2) (i.e. from 24.05.2018) to the prescribed authority; 2. That, on facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in the eyes of law and on the facts of the case. 2.1 That, on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without going either into the merits of the case or discussing the various grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. 3. That, on facts and circumstances of the case, the order made by Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-75, is non- est; That, the manual order dated 24.12.2019 made without complying with the mandate of CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 (Para 3) is not valid in law;” 4. Learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessee’s paper book consisting of 43 pages and, he particularly drew our attention to page 4 wherein the relevant chronology of events is given, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- Factors In Mahesh Wood Case Case of the Assessee Assessment/Original Order made on 30.12.2011 17.04.2018 Whether penalty was initiated under the assessment/original order? No Recommended Date of making reference to Addl CIT 23.07.2012 24.05.2018 Date of issuance of SHOW CAUSE NOTICE for levying penalty 28.08.2012 06.06.2019 Penalty Order 26.02.2013 24.12.2019 Whether penalty order held as barred by limitation? Yes Case before Your Honour 5. Learned counsel for the assessee also took us through the order of learned CIT(A) and noticing the order of learned CIT(A), we find that the ITA No.2525/Del/2024 3 appeal is dismissed simplicitor for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) also noted that the Revenue has issued three notices for compliance on 08.02.2021, 13.03.2024 and 23.03.2024 but, there was no compliance. When these facts were confronted to the learned Senior DR, he could not controvert the same. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we notice that the order of learned CIT(A) is simplicitor for non- prosecution and there is no discussion on merits at all. As there is no adjudication by the learned CIT(A) on merits, we are left with no alternative but to remand the matter back to him. Learned CIT(A) is duty-bound to decide the issue on merits instead of passing order for non-prosecution simplicitor. Hence, we remand this appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction that he will adjudicate first the issue of limitation and thereafter, he will also adjudicate the issue on merits, whether the assessee is exigible to penalties under Section 271C, 272A(2)(k) and 272A(2)(g) or not. In terms of the above, the matter is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Above decision was pronounced in the open Court on 13th November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( ( ( (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) ) ) ) (MAHAVIR SINGH (MAHAVIR SINGH (MAHAVIR SINGH (MAHAVIR SINGH) ) ) ) ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE VICE VICE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT VK. Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "