Mr. Rohit Narang, New Delhi v. ACIT, Noida

ITA 3476/DEL/2016 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 347620114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AADPN9029P
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3476/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Mr. Rohit Narang, New Delhi
Respondent ACIT, Noida
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC 1
Tribunal Order Date 14-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 10-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 10-10-2016
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 10-06-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.3476 TO 3480/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2009-10 & 2011-12 ROHIT NARANG 15/11 2 ND FLOOR SARVA PRIYA VIHAR NEW DELHI. PAN: AADPN9029P VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE NOIDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIKRAM SINGH ACCOUNTANT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.K. BANSAL SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.10.2016 ORDER THESE FIVE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF TH E COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 31.3.2016 CONFIRMING PENALT Y IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10 & 2011-12. ITA NOS.3476 TO 3480/D/2016 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 ARE THAT NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS NOT RESPONDED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE NO DETAILS WE RE AVAILABLE AND THE CASE WAS GETTING TIME BARRED THE AO COMPLETED ASSE SSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.20 24 620/- . IN THE LIKE MANNER THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED BEFORE THE AO D URING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. AS A RESULT OF THAT PENALTY OF RS.6 2 5 386/- BEING 100% OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX ON THE ADDITION OF RS.20 24 62 0/- WAS IMPOSED. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IT W AS NOT SERVED WITH ANY NOTICE AND FURTHER IT WAS NOT RESIDENT IN IND IA. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION AND CONFIRMED THE PENALT Y IMPOSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST SUCH PENALTY. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT NOT ONLY TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT EVEN THE PENALTY ORDER WAS ALSO PASSED EX PARTE . THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS THAT NO NOTICE WAS SERVED AND THAT FURT HER HE WAS NOT ITA NOS.3476 TO 3480/D/2016 3 RESIDENT IN INDIA HAVE NOT BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD ME ET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR A FRESH DECISION AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING A R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS COMMON SUBMI SSION BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OTHER YEA RS ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. FOL LOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE I SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED OR DER AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR A DE NOVO ADJUDICATION OF THE PENALTY AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.10.201 6. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 14 TH OCTOBER 2016. DK ITA NOS.3476 TO 3480/D/2016 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT AR ITAT NEW DELHI.