Case Law Details
Dinesh Babu Saxena Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
As against the penalty order dated 30/09/2016, the assessee has preferred the Appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of more than 12 months. It is the specific case of the assessee before the CIT(A) that the assessee has not received any notice u/s 271(1)(c) or the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee came to know only after the recovery proceedings have been initiated by the Department. Further, it is the case of the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) that, the assessee has left the address of Rajinder Nagar, Ghaziabad. Therefore, the notice and the assessment order has not been served on the assessee, which ultimately passing the penalty order against the assessee.
On perusal of the record, it is found that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches and also for non production of the original demand notice, but it is the specific case of the assessee is that neither the notice nor the penalty order have been served on the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has not brought any material on record regarding of non service of the notice and the penalty order on time to contradict the claim of the assessee.
In our considered opinion, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the delay, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay should have decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we inclined condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and further remand the matter to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to hear the assessee and dispose the Appeal on merit in accordance with law all the issue on merit are kept open.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
