SANTOSH AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-56(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 983/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 August 2022AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard before the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to provide the assessee a chance to represent their case on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased bonds/debentures worth Rs. 30,00,000/- and received credits, but did not file an ITR for AY 2011-12. This led to reassessment proceedings and a best judgment assessment by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities. Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 11.08.2022Pronounced: 17.08.2022

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-37, New Delhi, dated 18.11.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. The ld CIT(A)-37, New Delhi has erred in law to pas the order u/s 250(6) without providing the proper opportunity of being heard. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

Santosh Aggarwal Vs. ACIT 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that as per ITS/AIR information the assessee during F.Y. 2010-11 had purchased bonds/debentures aggregating to Rs. 30,00,000/- from Rural Electrification Corporation and received credits in form 26A of Rs. 1,22,487/-. It was noticed that the assessee had not filed ITR for A.Y. 2011-12. On the above basis proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) were initiated against the assessee and notice 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed best judgment assessment u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act, assessing income at Rs. 31,22,487/-. It is seen from the record that even before the learned CIT(Appeals) there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. The learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal by observing that nothing was brought on record to rebut the finding of the AO. Aggrieved against this the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

3.

No one appeared on behalf of the assessee at the hearing. It is seen from the record that before the lower authorities there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. The impugned order has been passed ex parte qua the assessee by the learned CIT(Appeals). Under these circumstances and in the interest of principles of natural justice, I am of the considered view that the assessee should be given an opportunity to represent his case on merit. Therefore, order of the learned

Santosh Aggarwal Vs. ACIT CIT(Appeals) is set aside and matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) to decide the same on merit, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

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

Order pronounced in open court on 17th August, 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 →