TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal restores appeal challenging penalty under IT Act, emphasizes fair opportunity for assessee</h1> <h3>M/s. P.M. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO Ward – 14 (1) New Delhi</h3> M/s. P.M. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO Ward – 14 (1) New Delhi - TMI Issues:1. Challenge to the exparte order of the CIT(A) in upholding the orders of the Assessing Officer.2. Challenge to the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.Issue 1 - Challenge to the exparte order of the CIT(A):In the case, two appeals were filed by the assessee against orders dated 18.02.2014 and 28.02.2018 of the CIT(A) relating to A. Y. 2008-09. The assessee challenged the exparte order of the CIT(A) in upholding the orders of the Assessing Officer. The first appeal, ITA No.1717/Del/2015, was dismissed as 'withdrawn' as the assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal. The second appeal, ITA No.3883/Del/2015, involved a challenge to the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.Issue 2 - Challenge to the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act:In the second appeal, the assessee contested the penalty of Rs. 4,72,770/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The counsel for the assessee highlighted a legal ground challenging the penalty, emphasizing that the penalty order was based on alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The counsel argued that only one option should be chosen between the two, and the penalty order was legally flawed. The CIT(A) had not addressed this legal ground, leading the counsel to request restoration of the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication.The Tribunal, after considering both sides, found that the legal ground challenging the penalty had not been addressed by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the issue. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) should provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case and decide the matter in accordance with facts and law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.In conclusion, the judgment involved the withdrawal of one appeal by the assessee, and the restoration of the second appeal challenging the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of addressing legal grounds raised by the parties and ensuring a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
