DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S LAWRENCE DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2961/DEL/2013Status: HeardITAT Delhi18 October 2022AY 2005-067 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly appreciated the facts and relevant provisions in deciding that the proceedings under Section 153A abated the earlier completed proceedings under Section 144. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was selected for scrutiny, and an ex-parte assessment was completed under Section 144. Subsequently, a search operation at the assessee's group premises led to an assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C.

What were the issues?

Whether proceedings under Section 153A abate earlier completed assessment proceedings under Section 144. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. N.K. BILLAIYA & SH. KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 18/10/2022Pronounced: 18/10/2022

Appellant Sh. Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR. Respondent None Date of hearing: 18/10/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 18/10/2022 ORDER

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar dated 08.02.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2005-06.

2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in coming to the conclusion that as a result of proceedings u/s. 153A of the I.T. Act, 196, the proceedings already completed earlier u/s. 144 of the Act would have abated.

2.

That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing relief to the assessee ignoring the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shaila Agarwal in appeal No.241 of 2008.

3. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts as well as without jurisdiction needs to be vacated and the order of the AO be restored.

3.

This appeal was first listed for hearing on 11.11.2013 on which date it was adjourned as no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Nine years have lapsed since the first date of hearing, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte.

4.

The DR was heard at length who placed strong reliance on the assessment order. The orders of the first appellate authority have been carefully perused. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.05.2005 which return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 6. As no one attended the assessment proceedings the AO was forced to complete the assessment exparte u/s. 144 of the Act and AO completed the assessment determining total income at Rs.22474290/-. 7. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A)-7, New Delhi and made written submissions which were transmitted to the AO by the CIT(A) calling for a remand report. The AO in his remand report informed the CIT(A) that a search and seizure operation on 14.10.2008 was conducted at the premises of the group of the assessee and an assessment order has been framed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 153 C of the Act. 8. On these facts the CIT(A) decided the present appeal as under :-

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →