Amarjit Mehta Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Penalty u/s 271D Remanded: Ex-parte Confirmation by CIT(A) Cannot Deny Substantive Justice
Assessee challenged penalty orders passed u/s 271D for AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20, which were confirmed by CIT(A) ex-parte due to non-appearance & non-filing of submissions. Before ITAT also, none appeared for Assessee, while Revenue supported lower authorities.
ITAT held that although Assessee failed to file submissions before CIT(A), mere non-prosecution cannot result in denial of substantive justice, particularly in penalty matters. Tribunal observed that CIT(A) had confirmed penalties only for want of submissions, without adjudicating issues on merits. In the interest of justice, ITAT set aside CIT(A)’s orders and restored the matter back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing proper opportunity of hearing to Assessee. Appeals were thus partly allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The captioned appeals are filed by assessee against the separate orders, both dated 30.03.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No.10337/2017-18 and 10564/2018-19 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of penalty orders, both dated 21.09.2022 passed u/s 271D of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively.
