IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.3476 to 3480/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2009-10 & 2011-12 Rohit Narang, Vs. ACIT, 15/11, 2nd Floor, Central Circle, Sarva Priya Vihar, Noida. New Delhi. PAN: AADPN9029P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Singh, Accountant Department By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2016 ORDER These five appeals by assessee arise out of common order passed by CIT(A) on 31.3.2016 confirming penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of Act in relation to assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 & 2011-12. ITA Nos.3476 to 3480/D/2016 2. Briefly stated, facts for assessment year 2006-07 are that notice u/s 153C was issued for filing return of income, which was not responded by assessee. Since no details were available and case was getting time barred, AO completed assessment u/s 144 of Act, determining total income at Rs.20,24,620/-. In like manner, assessee remained unrepresented before AO during penalty proceedings. As result of that, penalty of Rs.6,25,386/-, being 100% of amount of tax on addition of Rs.20,24,620/-, was imposed. assessee argued before ld. CIT(A) that it was not served with any notice and, further, it was not resident in India. ld. CIT(A) did not accept this contention and confirmed penalty imposed for assessment year 2006-07. assessee is aggrieved against such penalty. 3. I have heard rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. It is observed that not only assessment order, but, even penalty order was also passed ex parte. assessee s contentions that no notice was served and that further he was not 2 ITA Nos.3476 to 3480/D/2016 resident in India have not been dealt with by authorities below. In my considered opinion, ends of justice would meet adequately if impugned order is set aside and matter is restored to file of AO for fresh decision as per law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. It is common submission by both sides that facts and circumstances of other years are, mutatis mutandis, similar to those of assessment year 2006-07. Following view taken hereinabove, I set aside impugned order and remit matter to file of AO for de novo adjudication of penalty after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. 4. In result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. order pronounced in open court on 14.10.2016. Sd/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated, 14th October, 2016. dk 3 ITA Nos.3476 to 3480/D/2016 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. 4 Rohit Narang v. ACIT, Central Circle, Noida