Case Number: ITA 619/DEL/2019
Appellant: Suresh Kumar Gupta HUF, New Delhi
Respondent: ITO, Ward-35(2), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Result: 2014-15
Case Filed On: 2019-01-29
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2020-02-06
Pronounced On: 2020-02-06
The case of Suresh Kumar Gupta HUF vs ITO in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2014-15 revolves around the remand of a tax penalty due to lack of proper representation. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case, the proceedings, and the final judgment that led to the remand of the case.
Suresh Kumar Gupta HUF, the appellant, faced a tax penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-35(2), New Delhi. The penalty amounted to Rs. 8,89,128/- for the assessment year 2014-15. The appellant challenged the penalty order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi (CIT(A)), but the appeal was dismissed due to non-representation, leading to the filing of the present appeal before the ITAT.
The appeal was heard by the ITAT Bench ‘SMC’, New Delhi, with Smt. Diva Singh, Judicial Member, presiding over the case. The hearing took place on 05.02.2020, and the order was pronounced on 06.02.2020.
During the proceedings, the appellant was represented by Mr. V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate, while the respondent was represented by Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR).
The appellant’s representative argued that the penalty order upheld by the CIT(A) was invalid in law. He contended that the CIT(A) did not afford a reasonable and proper opportunity to the appellant before confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO). Given that the impugned order was an ex parte order, the appellant’s representative requested a remand of the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The respondent, represented by the Sr. DR, did not oppose the request for a remand, acknowledging the appellant’s right to a fair opportunity to present their case.
After considering the submissions from both parties, the ITAT decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) should decide the appeal on merits in accordance with the law, providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT also advised the appellant to make full and proper representation in their own interest and not to abuse the trust reposed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal clarified that if the appellant failed to cooperate, the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide the issue based on the material available on record.
In conclusion, the ITAT’s decision in the case of Suresh Kumar Gupta HUF vs ITO for the assessment year 2014-15 highlights the importance of providing a fair opportunity to taxpayers to present their case. The remand of the case to the CIT(A) ensures that the appellant can make a proper representation and that the appeal is decided on merits. This case underscores the need for thorough representation and adherence to legal procedures to avoid ex parte decisions that may adversely affect the taxpayer’s interests.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06.02.2020 by the Judicial Member Smt. Diva Singh.
Source: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘SMC’, New Delhi
Disclaimer: This article provides a general overview of the case and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. For detailed information, readers are encouraged to refer to the official case documents and consult with a qualified legal professional.
Suresh Kumar Gupta HUF vs ITO: Tax Penalty Remand for AY 2014-15
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform