TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DELHI-D] , the decision of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya [ 1979 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] and various other decisions, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. However, she has not decided the appeal on merit. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Levy of penalty of ₹ 44,82,582/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29th October, 2005 declaring the total income of ₹ 3,24,055/-. On the basis of the inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44,82,582/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, the CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by her, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising various grounds. 5. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and explain its case failing which the CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 13.05.2019. - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
