Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Gurgaon vs Acit, Gurgaon on 24 August, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "A", NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.4549/Del/2015
Assessment Year : 2010-11
Anil Kumar Gupta, ACIT, Circle- 1(1),
TH-001, Oakwood Estate, Gurgaon.
DLF City, Phase-II, Vs.
Gurgaon.
PAN : AAAPG0657R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : None
Department by : Shri R. C. Danday, Sr.DR
Date of hearing : 24-08-2017
Date of pronouncement : 24-08-2017
ORDER
PER R. K. PANDA, AM :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.05.2015 of CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon relating to assessment year 2010-11.
2. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal is being decided on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR.
3. Levy of penalty of Rs.2,81,995/- by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and confirmed by the CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal.
2ITA No.4549/Del/2015
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 16.08.2011 declaring taxable income of Rs.2,11,53,280/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) determining the total income at Rs.2,20,65,884/-. In the said order, the Assessing Officer disallowed of Rs.8,32,438/- being 30% deduction claimed on interest receipts by wrongly showing interest income as income from house property. Similarly, he also made an addition of Rs.80,166/- being interest income not declared in the income-tax return. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.2,81,995/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the above disallowance/addition.
5. Before the CIT(A), the assessee took adjournment in one occasion and did not attend the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) on the subsequent two occasions. The ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.
6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
7. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find from the order of the CIT(A) that he proceeded to decide the appeal ex- 3 ITA No.4549/Del/2015 parte on the ground that on the first day of notice on 17.10.2014 fixing the case for hearing on 18.11.2014, the assessee sought adjournment and the case was adjourned to 02.12.2014. However, on 02.12.2014 there was no compliance for which another notice was issued on 17.04.2015 fixing the date of hearing on 07.05.2015. Since on that day also, there was no compliance, he proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should be given one final opportunity by the CIT(A) to represent its case. We, therefore, restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to give one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case failing which the ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order. We hold and direct accordingly.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself on this 24th day of August, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (R. K. PANDA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 24-08-2017.
Sujeet
4
ITA No.4549/Del/2015
Copy of order to: -
1) The Appellant
2) The Respondent
3) The CIT
4) The CIT(A)
5) The DR, I.T.A.T., New Delhi
By Order
//True Copy//
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, New Delhi