Sujeet Gupta Vs ITO Ward-2(2)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Sujeet Gupta, defaulted in filing his Income Tax Return (ITR) for the assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked re-opening jurisdiction based on information that the assessee had purchased an immovable property worth ₹1,90,15,000/-. The assessee filed his ITR declaring a taxable income of ₹29,22,030/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-reporting of income. The assessee filed Form-68 seeking immunity from penalty, which was rejected by the AO. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty order. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the AO did not provide an opportunity to be heard before passing the penalty order.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the application for immunization filed by the assessee without providing him the opportunity of being heard?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• AS Trading Company Vs Income Tax Officer

• Rajeev Kumar Mittal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hisar

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• MANI SRIDHAR (Vs.) CIT (A)

• DCIT, Central Circle 2, vs. Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

  Delhi Bench 'F', New Delhi benchAY 2016-17Dismissed

• Bishamber Dayal vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Sri Saradha Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. The DCIT

  Chennai bench