MAKRAND UTTAMRAO PARGAONKAR BY GPA HOLDER VAIJNATH UTTAMRAO PARGAONKAR, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 135/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 April 2021AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not unsustainable as the proviso to Section 147(1) was not applicable. However, the addition made under Section 50C was incorrect as the Assessing Officer failed to refer the matter to the DVO as mandated by Section 50C(2).

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by four assessees against the CIT(A) orders concerning assessment year 2007-08, arising from reassessment proceedings. The assessees did not appear before the tribunal, and the matter proceeded ex parte.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the correctness of the addition made under Section 50C without a reference to the DVO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 50C,Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ SMC’ BENCH : Hyderabad

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA

Hearing: 24/03/2021Pronounced: 26/04/2021

O R D E R These four assessees’ appeals for A.Y. 2007-08 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ‘[CIT(A)]’ - 1 Hyderabad’s orders; all dated 26.10.2016, passed in case no.656 to 659/2016-17 in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’].

Case called twice. None appeared on behalf of assessees. They are accordingly proceeded ex parte. Heard Shri N.Srikanth, learned DR representing the Revenue.

2.

Coming to assessees’ first and foremost argument that the impugned reopening is not sustainable in the eyes of law since the Assessing Officer has issued sec.148 notice(s) beyond the specified period of 4 years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year(s) and therefore, hit by sec.147(1) proviso, I find with the able assistance of learned departmental representative that none of these cases involve sec.143(3) proceedings forming a condition precedent so as to make the foregoing proviso exigible. The assessee’s identical legal ground in all these cases stands declined accordingly.

3.

Next is the issue of correctness of identical sec.50C addition in all these cases. Mr. Srikanth fails to rebut clinching fact that the Assessing Officer has not made any reference to the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) even if the tax payer has not raised objections to this effect. I therefore restore assessee’s identical latter substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication as per law. These assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in Open Court on 26 /04/2021. Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26th April, 2021 • gmv to 138/Hyd/2017 AY 2007-08 Makrand Uttamrao Pargaonkar and others

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →