Case Number: ITA 5595/DEL/2019
Appellant: Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad
Respondent: ITO, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad
Assessment Year: 2009-10
Case Filed On: 2019-06-27
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-09-30
Pronounced On: 2022-09-30
This case involves the appeal filed by Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ghaziabad relating to the assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was filed on 2019-06-27 and the order was pronounced on 2022-09-30. The main issue in this case was related to the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year under consideration.
Ashok Kumar, an individual, was noted by the Assessing Officer (AO) to have deposited cash aggregating to Rs.17,57,000 in his savings bank account during the financial year 2008-09. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was served through affixture. The case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny and assessment was framed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, resulting in the total income being assessed at Rs.17,57,000. The AO also passed a penalty order dated 13.02.2017 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying a penalty of Rs.4,89,600.
Ashok Kumar raised the following grounds of appeal:
During the hearing, the Learned AR (Authorized Representative) of the appellant stated that the reasons given by the CIT(A) for dismissing the appeal were incorrect and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. The AR requested that the appellant be given another opportunity to present the case and undertook that all required details would be furnished to the authorities.
The Learned DR (Departmental Representative) supported the order of the AO.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reviewed the submissions and material available on record. It was noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits, which is a requirement under Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal highlighted that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of deciding the points in dispute and assigning reasons in support of the conclusions.
Further, it is a well-settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties, and no party should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, the ITAT set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant was also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower authorities.
Since the issue was restored to the CIT(A), the ITAT did not adjudicate the grounds raised by the appellant on merits. Thus, the grounds of the appellant were allowed for statistical purposes.
In conclusion, the appeal of Ashok Kumar was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2022. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication with proper opportunity for the appellant to present the case on merits.
This case highlights the importance of following due process and principles of natural justice in tax proceedings, ensuring that all parties are given a fair chance to present their case.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2022
Signed by:
(NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER
(ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date: 30.09.2022
Copy forwarded to:
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Ashok Kumar vs ITO, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad – Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(c)
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