RAMAKANT U SHARMA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 32(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1780/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 October 2022AY 2010-116 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate the availability of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, despite multiple opportunities. The assumption of jurisdiction was found to be without following mandatory procedures.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2010-11. The Revenue repeatedly sought time to produce assessment records to justify the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening the assessment. The Assessing Officer stated that the assessment record for the period has not been located.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer validly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the assessment without providing reasons to the assessee and without substantiating the same before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 26/10/2022Pronounced: 31/10/2022

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 14.02.2019 passed by CIT(A)-11, New Delhi, pertaining to A.Y.2010-11 assessment year is assailed on various grounds of appeal. These reads as under :-

2.

The Ld. AR inviting attention to the order sheets submitted that repeatedly the department has been seeking time to bring on record the documents to support the jurisdictional issue. For the said purpose attention was invited to the order sheet entries dated 25.10.2012; 27.01.2022, 10.02.2022; 10.05.2022; 11.07.2022 and yet again time was given on 01.09.2022. Accordingly, it was his submission that a number of opportunities have been provided to the Revenue to produce assessment records so as to justify that assumption of jurisdiction was valid in law. Thus, it was his prayer that the appeal be allowed quashing the orders.

3.

The Sr. DR agreed that the department has been directed to produce the assessment records. It was submitted that he has filed a reply received from the Assessing Officer on email dated 20.10.2022 wherein it is informed that the assessment record for the specific period has not been located. For ready reference letter received and made available is extracted here under :-

4.

Accordingly, he pleaded his inability to meet the jurisdictional challenge as the relevant information from the field was not traceable.

5.

The Ld. AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that before the First Appellate Authority the assessee has specifically raised specific arguments alleging that till date the Assessing Officer has never supplied the assessee reasons for reopening assessment.

5.1 For ready reference the relevant extract from page-4 of the impugned order was relied upon to emphasize the number of times the issue had been agitated. The submissions of the assessee extracted in the order, it was argued, would show that the assessee had also requested the First Appellate Authority to provide the reasons recorded. Despite repeated request to the Assessing Officer agitated before the CIT(A) also, the reasons till date have not been provided for reopening the assessment. Infact, it was argued that the AO had never recorded the reasons for reopening. It is seen that the said objection though extracted in the order has not been addressed by the First Appellate Authority. It has been argued that number of opportunities have been given by the Coordinate Benches right from 25.10.2021 onwards. The facts on record and the reply of the AO, it was argued, shows that reasons for reopening in fact were never recorded.

Accordingly, considering the reply made available by the Revenue, it was his prayer that the orders be quashed.

6.

The Sr. DR relies on the order.

7. I have heard submissions and gone through material available on record. Considering the departmental reply made available read alongwith number of opportunities provided to the Revenue to substantiate what reasons were recorded and whether it was made available to the assessee, I find that in the face of the reply available, the reasons recorded are not available with the Revenue. Hence, in the light of the specific submissions extracted in the order alleging non providing of the reasons for reopening and lack of filing the same before the ITAT, the absence of finding on the issues by the First Appellate Authority gives rise to concerns that possibly reasons for re- opening were never recorded. Accordingly, I am convinced that the jurisdiction has been assumed in the peculiar facts of the present case is without following the mandatory procedures. Without demonstrating the availability of the reasons recorded for the reopening on record, the assumption of jurisdiction and exercise of power in violation of the settled legal jurisprudence cannot be sustained. The orders are accordingly quashed. Said announcement was made in the Open Court at the time of hearing.

7.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Said order was pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2022.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →