2019 (6) TMI 398 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Assessment u/s. 144 - exparte order passed by the AO - no proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the exparte order passed by the AO u./s 144 as well as non-consideration of sufficient reasons for not condoning the delay by the CIT(A) in filing the appeal before him, we are of the considered view that the delay deserve to be condoned and the issues in dispute need to be readjudicated by the AO, after considering all the evidences/documents filed by the Assessee and assessee be given adequate opportunity of being heard. We remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for do novo consideration, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also consider all the documents/evidences filed by the assessee and then pass a speaking order. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Quantum appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2006-07
- Penalty appeal ITA No. 592/Del/2017 for AY 2006-07
- Penalty appeal ITA No. 593/Del/2016 for AY 2006-07

Quantum Appeal Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s order for AY 2006-07 on various grounds. The appellant argued that the initial notice under section 143(2) was not served, and the assessment under section 144 was improperly conducted without following due procedure. The appellant also contested the disallowance of expenditure and addition made under section 69 of the Act. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel emphasized the errors in the assessment process and the dismissal of the appeal due to a filing delay. The appellant submitted a comprehensive Paper Book with relevant documents, which were not considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's ex parte order lacked proper opportunity for the assessee to present its case. Additionally, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a filing delay. After reviewing the appellant's submissions and documents in the Paper Book, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the disputed issues back to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of providing the assessee with a fair hearing and considering all submitted evidence. The Tribunal directed the assessee to cooperate fully with the AO and not cause unnecessary delays. Ultimately, the quantum appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Penalty Appeal ITA No. 592/Del/2017 Analysis:
The penalty appeal for AY 2006-07 challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s order imposing a penalty of ?20,000 without serving a notice to the assessee. Given the remittal of the quantum appeal issues to the AO for reconsideration, the penalty appeal was also set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed similar instructions as provided for the quantum appeal, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and consideration of all relevant documents. Consequently, the penalty appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Penalty Appeal ITA No. 593/Del/2016 Analysis:
Similarly, the penalty appeal for AY 2006-07 contested the Ld. CIT(A)'s imposition of a penalty of ?27,83,160 without serving a notice to the assessee. As the issues were remitted back to the AO for reconsideration in the quantum appeal, the penalty appeal was also set aside to the AO with similar directives for a fair hearing and review of all submitted evidence. Consequently, the penalty appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, all three appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal emphasizing the importance of fair proceedings, proper consideration of evidence, and providing the assessee with adequate opportunities to present their case.