Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2019) 08 ITAT CK 0124

M/s. Kalinga Conduits & Electricables (P) vs Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 8 August 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Panda (AM)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Income Tax Appeal No. 8089 /Del Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 472 words

R.K. Panda, AM

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.08.2018 of the CIT(A)-5, Delhi relating to A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

Levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/-u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act by Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 28.05.2014 declaring total income of Rs.5,994/-. Since the assessee did not comply to the statutory notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 142 (1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act. Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) in the exparte order passed by him sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act. He submitted that in the interest of justice the matter may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.

6.

The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee is very casual in its approach and has scant regard to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. In the instant case the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly sustained the penalty levied by the AO and, therefore, the same should be upheld.

7.

I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). It is an admitted fact that due to non appearance by the assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment under any pretext and substantiate its case failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.