GHULAM MOHD. DASTAGIR KHAN, NIZAMABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1113/HYD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 October 2020AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to provide the assessees with another opportunity to establish their claim by remitting the matter back to the AO for de novo consideration. The AO was directed to admit and examine fresh evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessees filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07. They submitted that additional evidence was available which needed to be examined by the AO, and that the CIT(A) had failed to examine fresh evidence submitted before him.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessees should be given an opportunity to submit and have new evidence examined by the AO, and whether the matter should be remitted back for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Shri Tej Prakash Toshniwal
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Mehta, DR
Hearing: 05/10/2020Pronounced: 05/10/2020

Assessment Year: 2006-07 Abdulla Khan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nizamabad. Ward-1, PAN: AEOPK 0603 F Nizamabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Tej Prakash Toshniwal Revenue by: Shri Sandeep Mehta, DR Date of hearing: 05/10/2020 Date of pronouncement: 05/10/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:

Both these appeals are filed by the assessees against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0085 & 0086/2008- 09/CIT(A)-5, dated 31/5/2016 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2006-07.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that both the assessees had filed certain additional evidence before the Tribunal which is required to be examined by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had also submitted fresh evidence before the ld. CIT (A) however, he had failed to examine the same. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessees to justify their stand otherwise it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed to the submission of the ld. AR and requested for confirming the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities.

3.

After hearing both sides, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be provided to the assessees in order to establish their claim as they have pleaded that they are in possession of sufficient evidence now to justify their stand. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo consideration. I also hereby direct the ld. AO to admit and examine any fresh evidence filed before him and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and merit duly considering the evidences filed before the ld. CIT (A) and the Tribunal. I further caution both the assessees to promptly cooperate before the ld. Revenue Authorities in order to expedite their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders based on the materials placed before them. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.

Pronounced in the open Court on 05th October, 2020.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →