MANOJ KUMAR VYAS,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 51/JODH/2022Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 November 2022AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to present their case before the PCIT due to the short notice period. Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the PCIT's file for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was completed under Section 144. The Principal CIT (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, issuing a show cause notice with a very short response time. The assessee submitted a reply, but the PCIT passed the revision order without considering it.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present their case during revision proceedings under Section 263, and whether the PCIT considered the assessee's reply before passing the order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Adv.)
For Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain
Hearing: 03/11/2022

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revision order dated 29-03-2022 passed by Ld PCIT, Jodhpur-1 u/s 263 of the Act for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment of the year under consideration was completed with the Assessing Officer to Manoj Kumar Vyas vs. Pr. CIT the best the judgment u/s 144 of the Act. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act.

3.

The ld. AR submitted that the ld. PCIT issued show cause notice on 19/03/2022 asking the assessee to furnish certain details on 22/03/2022, i.e., within a short span of only two days. He issued another notice on 22- 03-2022 fixing the hearing on 25.03.2022. The assessee, however, could furnish reply only on 24/03/2022. However, the ld. PCIT proceeded to pass the impugned revision order without considering the reply filed by the assessee. The Ld PCIT has observed that the assessee has not responded to the notice issued by him. The Ld A.R submitted that it was quite possible that the reply filed by the assessee did not reach the hands of Ld PCIT. Accordingly the ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not get enough opportunity to present his case before ld. PCIT due to short time given by him. Accordingly, he prayed that all the matters restored to the file of ld. PCIT for examining them afresh, after affording the adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

We heard ld. DR and perused the record. We notice that ld. PCIT has initiated the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by showing notice on 19.03.2022 calling for various details. We notice that the ld. PCIT has Manoj Kumar Vyas vs. Pr. CIT given time up to 11 AM on 22.03.2022 for furnishing the reply, meaning thereby, effectively the assessee was given only two days for furnishing the reply. Thereafter the PCIT gave another notice on 22.03.2022 fixing the hearing on 25.03.2022. It is the submission of the ld. AR that the reply could be furnished by the assessee on 24.03.2022 only and the same has not been considered by Ld PCIT. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that there is merit in the contention of ld. AR that the assessee did not get adequate opportunity to present his case properly before ld. PCIT.

Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present his case before Ld PCIT. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld PCIT and restore all the issues to his file for examining them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the Ld PCIT for expeditious completion of set aside proceedings.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th November, 2022.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →