Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Sewa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs Dcit, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi on 1 May, 2024
1
ITA no. 4067/Del/2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "B": NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 4067/DEL/2019
Assessment Year: 2012-13
Sewa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, Circle-23(2),
C/o M/s Rakesh Krishan & New Delhi.
Associates,
19, Second Floor, Navyug Market,
Ghaziabad-201001.
PAN- AAICS1402M
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee represented by None
Department represented by Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 15.02.2024
Date of pronouncement 01.05.2024
ORDER
PER M. BALAGANESH, AM:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-17, New Delhi, dated 04.01.2017, arising out of penalty order dated 30.09.2015 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passed by the DCIT, Circle-23(2), New Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13.
2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice on several occasions. Since sufficient opportunities were already given to the assessee , we deem it fit to dispose of this appeal on hearing the ld. DR and based on materials available on record.
2
ITA no. 4067/Del/2019
3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty on an adhoc addition.
4. We have heard the ld. DR and based on materials available on record. The return of income for the Asst Year 2012-13 was filed by the assessee company on 22.8.2012 declaring loss of Rs 43,66,099/-. The ld. AO in the scrutiny assessment proceedings observed that in response to the questionnaire issued by him, the authorized representative of the assessee company had furnished only part details and that there was no full compliance from the side of the assessee. The ld. AO observed that during the year under consideration, there was considerable increase in administrative expenditure of the assessee company when compared to that in the immediately preceding year. The assessee furnished a reply before the ld. AO that most of the documents were lost for which a complaint was filed with the police authorities. The ld. AO ignored the submissions and proceeded to make adhoc disallowance of expenditure of Rs 48,61,381/- in the assessment. Similarly, there was a fresh receipt of unsecured loan of Rs 11,29,271/- during the year under consideration, for which the assessee did not furnish any details. Accordingly, the same was added by the ld. AO treating the said loan as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act stood levied subsequently by the ld. AO in the sum of Rs 18,51,111/- on the aforesaid two additions by observing that both the additions had been accepted by the assessee by not preferring any appeal before the ld. CIT(A). This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). But we find that the assessee vide Ground No.2 had stated that some of the additions were deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings and that only one addition got ultimately sustained. No details in this regard were made available either by the 3 ITA no. 4067/Del/2019 assessee or by the ld. DR before us to state the fact as to which of the additions were deleted or sustained by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings. Both the lower authorities had categorically stated that no appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the quantum proceedings. Considering these facts, the bench is of the opinion that this matter requires factual verification at the end of the ld. AO. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of ld. AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the ld. AO for expeditious disposal of the set aside proceedings by furnishing the requisite details in support of its contentions. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 01.05.2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
(AMIT SHUKLA) (M. BALAGANESH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated:01.05.2024.
*MP*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, NEW DELHI