Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Hbn Dairies & Allied Ltd., New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 18 May, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: 'C' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos.-1983 to 1990/Del/2015
(Assessment Years: 2000-01 to 2007-08)
HBN Dairies & Allied Ltd. vs ACIT
302-303, Vardhman Tower, Central Circle-4,
Sonia Complex, Vikaspuri, New Delhi.
New Delhi.
AAACH7852C
Assessee by Ms. Gunjan Jain, CA
Revenue by Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 17.05.2018
Date of Pronouncement 18.05.2018
ORDER
PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, J.M.
These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the respective orders of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'). Since common issues are involved in these appeals. These were heard together and for the sake of reference, we extract the grounds raised in appeal no. 1983/Del/2015 read as under:
1. "Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in passing and ex-parte order u/s 250(6) which is grossly injudicious, unwarranted and bad in law.
2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. First Appellate Authority was not justified in passing the ex-parte order 2 ITA Nos. 1983 to 1990/Del/2015 and dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee merely on account of non-appearance on behalf of the assessee without adjudicating on the merits of the case and without affording any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs.
2,33,953/- levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271C of the Act is grossly injudicious, unwarranted, against the facts of the Act as the assessee company was prevented by a reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act and contended non-compliance of TDS provisions was not deliberate.
4. The assessee prays for leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal."
2. These appeals came up for hearing on 17.05.2018 and the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has moved an application for adjournment.
3. Having carefully perused the record, we find that the CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeals of the assessee's ex-parte without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He rather did not deal with the issues on merits and summarily dismissed the appeals of the assessee.
4. In the light of these facts, we find no merit in the adjournment application of the assessee and we accordingly rejected the same and heard the appeal.
5. On careful perusal of the order, we find that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily without dealing the issues on merits, whereas, he has required to deal with the issues on merits even if, non appears on behalf of the assessee. In the light of these facts, we set aside the orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals and restore the matter to his file to re-adjudicate the 3 ITA Nos. 1983 to 1990/Del/2015 issues afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, these appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.05.2018 Sd/- Sd/-
(PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (S.K. YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18.05.2018 *Kavita Arora Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Draft dictated on 17.05.2018 Draft placed before author 17.05.2018 Draft proposed & placed before the second member Draft discussed/approved by Second Member.
Approved Draft comes to the 18.5.2018 Sr.PS/PS Kept for pronouncement on 18.5.2018 File sent to the Bench Clerk 18.5.2018 Date on which file goes to the AR Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
Date of dispatch of Order.
4ITA Nos. 1983 to 1990/Del/2015