Case Number: ITA 1097/DEL/2020
Appellant: RB Diversified (P) Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent: ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2016-17
Result: Final Tribunal Order
Case Filed On: 2020-03-17
Date of Order: 2023-01-05
Pronounced On: 2023-01-05
This case pertains to the disallowance and penalty imposed for the assessment year 2016-17 involving RB Diversified (P) Ltd., New Delhi, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle-20(2), New Delhi. The primary issues in this appeal were the disallowance under Section 14A, provision for unrealized losses, interest on late payment of TDS, and short-term capital gains tax enhancement, as well as the upholding of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
RB Diversified (P) Ltd., New Delhi, filed an appeal against the order dated 31/01/2020 passed by CIT(A)-7, New Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee included alleged violations of natural justice, refusal of adjournment, and improper computation of disallowances and penalties by the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A).
The AO had made several additions and disallowances in the assessment, including:
The AO also imposed a penalty of Rs. 45,89,840 under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The CIT(A) upheld the additions and disallowances made by the AO, dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had not complied with the notices sent and had not provided necessary evidence for adjournment requests, leading to the conclusion that there was no proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
During the proceedings before the ITAT, the appellant argued that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the adjournment request and that there was a lack of proper opportunity to present the case. The key points discussed were:
Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA
Revenue: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) had refused to accept the adjournment petition and had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper consideration of the appellant’s circumstances. The counsel argued that there was a lack of proper opportunity to be heard and requested the matter to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the CIT(A) but did not oppose the proposal to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and verified the circumstances surrounding the adjournment request and the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A). The key findings were:
Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to consider the issue afresh after giving the appellant a proper opportunity of being heard. The appellant was also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the CIT(A).
The ITAT concluded that the disallowances and penalties imposed for the assessment year 2016-17 involving RB Diversified (P) Ltd., New Delhi, and ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi, required fresh consideration by the CIT(A) due to the lack of proper opportunity for the appellant to present their case. As a result, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
Order pronounced in the open court on 5th January 2023 by Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member, and Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member.
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