MAHESH KUMAR AMBHAGOLE,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-72(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1100/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2022AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the additions were made due to the assessee's failure to furnish supporting evidence. Therefore, the assessee deserves an opportunity to present his case with evidence. The impugned order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's primary grievance was the lack of a reasonable opportunity to be heard by either the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority. The Assessing Officer had completed the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 based on the best of his judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer require further examination after providing the assessee an opportunity to submit evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.07.2022Pronounced: 22.07.2022

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

I have heard Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, learned Authorized Representative of the assessee and Shri Om Parkash, learned Departmental Representative.

3.

The basic grievance of the assessee is, he was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard either by the Assessing Officer or by the first appellate authority. Thus, learned authorized representative submitted that issues may be restored back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

4.

Learned Departmental Representative did not express any serious objection to assessee’s request.

5.

Having considered rival submissions, I find, due to non- appearance of assessee, for whatsoever may be the reason, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under Section 144 read with section 147 of the Act to the best of his judgment. Whereas, assessee’s appeal was decided by NFAC. It is observed, while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer had made the following additions:

i) Unexplained money under Section 69A: Rs.16,02,250 ii) Income from salary: Rs. 7,47,258 iii) Unexplained expenditure under Section :Rs.12,03,903 69C of the Act.

6.

On perusal of the respective order of the departmental authorities, it is evident, the additions were made and sustained purely due to lack of supporting evidence furnished by assessee.

7.

Considering the fact that the additions made are of the nature, which require the assessee to explain the source, in my considered opinion, assessee deserves an opportunity to establish his case through supporting evidence. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of the first appellate authority and restore the issues relating to the additions contested in the present appeal back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further, assessee is directed to comply with the queries to be made by the Assessing Officer and cooperate in finalize the proceedings. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal 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 →