Late Shri Lakshmi Mohan Gupta , Uttar ... vs Assessee

I.T.A. No. 358/DEL/2013 Block Period ending on 28.2.2000 (AY 1990-91 to 2000-01) Late Shri Lakshmi Mohan Gupta, Assistant Commissioner of through legal heir Sh. Ajay Gupta, VS. Income Tax, Sh. Anirudh Gupta and others Central Circle, 237, Westend Road, Merrut Meerut Cantt (UP (PAN: ADJPG6650Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Rastogi, A.R. Department by : Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 30-06-2015 Date of Order : 30-06-2015

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU : JM

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the

Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut dated 1.10.2012

pertaining to Block Period ending on 28.2.2000 (A.Y. 1990-91 to

2000-01) on the following grounds:-

1. "That the AO has failed to provide just and reasonable

opportunity to the assessee and also the legal 1 ITA NO.358/Del/2013

representative of the assessee before imposing the

penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2. That Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte and

proper opportunity of hearing was not allowed,

violating the principle of natural law and justice.

3. Without prejudice to above no penalty is leviable on

legal heir and penalty is in the nature of quasi criminal

proceedings and legal heirs cannot be penalized for

the action of deceased.

4. That the addition to the declared income is in itself

based on wrong fact and no evidence and thus is not

justified addition. Penalty imposed is also wrong that

the addition itself is wrong.

5. That in view of the fact stated above the penalty

imposed Rs. 800000/- is not justified and is thus illegal,

unjust against the fact and also against the law.

6. That the entire penalty order is arbitrary, illegal and

unjustified, against the fact as well as against the law.

7. That the assessee reserves its right to add, alter,

amend any grounds of appeal mentioned above."

2. The facts narrated by the Revenue Authority are not disputed

by both the parties, therefore, no need to repeat here for the sake

of brevity.

2

ITA NO.358/Del/2013

3. At the time of hearing Shri Ajay Rastogi, Authorised

Representative of the assessee appeared and stated that Ld. CIT(A)

has passed the impugned order without hearing the assessee and

without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He requested

that in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded back to

the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues in dispute afresh

under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to

the assessee.

3.1 On the other hand, Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection

to the said request of the assessee's Authorised Representative.

4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records,

especially the orders of the Revenue Authorities and we are of the

considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in

the absence of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity to

the assessee. For the sake convenience, full order of the Ld. CIT(A)

is reproduced as under:-

"Appellate order and grounds of decision u/s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961

This appeal arises from the order of the ACIT,

Central Circle, Meerut dated 26.11.2009 under section

158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 imposing a

penalty of Rs. 80,00,000/-

3

ITA NO.358/Del/2013

2. Two notices for compliance on 17.2.2012 and

13.8.2012 were issued to which there has been no

compliance. However, adjournment sought on 13.8.2012

and the case was adjourned for 28.8.2012. No

compliance was made on 28.8.2012 and the case was

further adjourned for 17.9.2012. Again no compliance

was made. I have, therefore, no hesitation in inferring

that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his

appeal.

3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(P.K. GUPTA) Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Meerut"

5. After perusing the aforesaid impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A),

we find that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order. He

summarily dismissed the appeal by holding that assessee was not

interested in pursuing the appeal. In our considered opinion, Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in this regard. Ld. CIT(A) should have adjudicated

the issue on merits. It is a settled law that even the administrative

orders have to be consistent with the rules of natural justice.

Hence, we hold that in this case the issue needs to be remitted back

to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) is directed to

4 ITA NO.358/Del/2013

consider the issue afresh and pass a proper and speaking order

considering the merits of the case. Needless to add that the

assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard.

6. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30/6/2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

[S.V. MEHROTRA] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date 30/6/2015 "SRBHATNAGAR" Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT

TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches

5 ITA NO.358/Del/2013

6