NARESH KUMAR SHARMA,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD-3, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 92/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 September 2022AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the assessee's submissions before disposing of the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made an addition of Rs. 6,02,47,500/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-appearance, without considering written submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's written submissions. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition without considering the assessee's response.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI

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

For Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Chand, Sr.DR
Hearing: 05.09.2022Pronounced: 20.09.2022

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 13.11.2018.

2.

The assessee has raised following ground of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has errored in confirming the addition of Rs.6,02,47,500/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer completely ignore the written submissions filed by the Appellant by email sent on 6th Sept.2018. The same may kindly be deleted.

2. That the impugned order is factually wrong and legally bad, the same may be deleted.

3. That the Appellant craves the permission to add/modify/amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is hear & disposed off.”

3.

At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the records that there has been no representation on behalf of the assessee since 04.01.2022. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and being disposed off on the basis of material available on record.

FACTS OF THE CASE 4. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessment of the assessee was re-opened u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] vide order dated 08.11.2017. Thereby, the Assessing Officer [“AO”] made addition of Rs.6,02,47,500/-.

5.

Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance of the assessee, without considering the submissions of the assessee.

6.

Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

7.

Ld. Sr. DR opposed the grounds of appeal and supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has been throughout negligent and did not attend the proceedings, despite having been given sufficient opportunity of hearing.

8.

We have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing as under:-

3. Findings:- The assessee has made no appearance in this case although various opportunities were given. The first hearing notice sent to the appellant on 06.08.2018 fixing the date of hearing on 20.08.2018 evoked no response. The second notice on 24.08.2018 fixing the date of hearing on 06.09.2018 invoked no response. The third notice on 12.09.2018 fixing the date of hearing on 26.09.2018 also evoked no response. The fourth notice on 27.09.2018 fixing the date of hearing on 17.10.2018 as being last opportunity to the appellant also evoked no response. But there has been no compliance. In spite of various opportunities being provided to the appellant, no documents or explanation have been provided by him. It strengthens my belief that the appellant has nothing to add or submit in respect of the additions made by the AO. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.CIT-3, vs Ashok Ji Chanduji Thakur in order dated 27.06.2018 in R/Tax Appeal Nos.710 to 714 of 2018 and 717 of 2018 have held that in the case of non- cooperative attitude of the assessee despite various opportunities being granted at the AO as well as the level of CIT(A), the additions made by the AO was justified and the CIT(A) was also right in confirming the same. Accordingly, I confirm the additions made by the AO.” 9. However, the grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is that the assessee had made written submissions by email dated 06.09.2018 which has not been considered by the Ld.CIT(A). Looking to the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the submissions, if any was sent by the assessee which is mandated by law and then disposed off the appeal by way of speaking order. Therefore, we hereby, set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh on merit after considering the submissions of the assessee.

Needless to say that the Ld.CIT(A) would afford sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →