ITO WARD - 69(5), NEW DELHI vs. MADHU BHATIA, NEW DELHI

The grievance of the revenue read as under :-

None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of notice we decided to proceed exparte.

The DR was heard at length who strongly supported the findings of the AO. 5. The order of the first appellate authority carefully perused. 6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 31.03.2014 which was processed u/s. 143 (1) of the Act subsequently the return was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment was completed at a figure of Rs.11144581/-. 7. Subsequently the AO invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act rectified the assessment order and levied interest of Rs.385591/- u/s. 234A of the Act. 8. Assessee strongly objected the order before the CIT(A) and strongly contended that as per the provisions of section 204 (3) of the Act the order passed under that section shall not be reopened in any other proceedings under the Act and it was claimed that the order framed u/s. 154 of the Act tentamounts to reopening or proceedings by charging interest u/s. 234 A of the Act which was not charged earlier. It was brought to the notice of the CIT(A) that the order passed u/s. 154 is not in conformity with the provisions of DTDRS 2016. The assessee also placed strong reliance on the Circular No.2/2015 issued by the CBDT which was on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prannoy 309 ITR 231. 9. After considering the facts and the submissions and the relevant provisions of the Act / scheme the CIT(A) held as under :- Considering the ratio of above decision

On a careful consideration of the findings of the CIT(A) we do not find any error or infirmity to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Decision announced in the open court on 21.09.2022.