DR. JASWINDER SINGH THROUGH GPA SMT. JAGJIWAN KAUR,ROPAR vs. ITO, W-2(2), ROPAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 824/CHANDI/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 October 2021AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders and that notices for hearing were not effectively served on the assessee. Therefore, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings and passed an ex-parte order. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who also passed an ex-parte order. The assessee's primary grievance was the ex-parte nature of the orders, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to non-service of notices. Whether additions made under Section 40(a)(ia) and denial of depreciation were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 28/02/2019 of Ld.

CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh.

2.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal.

1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in passing an ex-parte order which is against the Principles of Natural Justice and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified.

2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,81,134/- and Rs. 37,560,/- made on account of alleged non

deduction of TDS applying the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) which is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in not allowing depreciation on instruments & hospital equipment, furniture & fixtures, office equipment, computer and refrigerator and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified. 4. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to the facts of the case and thus untenable.

3.

Vide Ground No. 1 the main grievance of the assessee relates to the exparte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) against the Principles of Natural Justice.

4.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring an income of Rs. 627613/- and the A.O. framed the original assessment under section 144 of the Act on 14/12/2009 accepting the returned income. Later on the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) were initiated by issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act. The A.O. framed the assessment by passing the exparte order and made the addition of Rs. 18,86,277/-.

5.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who disposed off the appeal of the assessee by passing the exparte order and allowed part relief to the assessee.

6.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

7.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice for hearing was served upon the assessee and even the A.O. passed the assessment order exparte without providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He requested to remand this matter back to the file of the A.O. to be adjudicated afresh after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.

In his rival submissions the Ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

9.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) passed their respective orders exparte. Ld. CIT(A) also mentioned that the notice for hearing was returned by postal authority with remarks “ Left” which clearly shows that the notice for hearing was not served upon the assesse. The A.O. has also not brought any material on record to substantiate that notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. I therefore considering the totality of the facts deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the A.O. to be adjudicate afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

10.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/10/2021 )

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →