KRISHNA E CAMPUS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 705/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 December 2023AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the issue needs to be adjudicated afresh by the AO after granting a proper hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in property development, filed a return declaring a loss. The AO determined income at Rs. 2,09,82,885/- by rejecting the claimed loss and applying the percentage completion method. The assessee's rectification application was also rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO provided a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order. Whether the rectification application was wrongly rejected.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Urala, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Nischal .B, Addl. CIT DR

Date of Hearing : 06-12-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 14-12-2023 ORDER

PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi arising out of the order dated 14.05.2019 passed by the ACIT, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bangalore u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

The assessee engaged in developing of property and constructing residential apartments cum commercial

Page 16.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 1,87,96,563/- which was finalized by the Ld.AO upon determining income at Rs.2,09,82,885/-. GP was determined on the basis of the percentage completion method. After allowing expenses from it, the income was determined by the Ld.AO at Rs.2,09,82,885/-. The loss claimed by the appellant in its return were rejected. The assessee preferred an application for rectification which also stood rejected.

3.

At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the Ld.AO has not given a proper opportunity of being heard which was also recorded in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). However the order passed on the rectification application made by the assessee before the Ld.AO stood wrongly rejected by the Ld.CIT(A) as admittedly the assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard.

4.

In that view of the matter, the issue needs to be adjudicated afresh by the Ld.AO upon giving an opportunity to the assessee for the ends of justice as the crux of the arguments of the Ld.AR. Such contention made by the assessee’s counsel was not been able to be controverted by the Ld.DR. We also find force in such submission rendered by assessee’s counsel. Hence in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, we remit the issue to the file of Ld.AO for adjudication of the same upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the Page assessee and upon taking into consideration the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th December, 2023.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →