JALESHWAR NATH SINHA,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6504/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 June 2022AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic, non-descript, and lacking in reasoning. The significant delay in serving the order also raised concerns. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 11,65,500/- made by the AO on account of cash deposits. The assessee also pointed out that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and served with significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s order was passed in accordance with law and whether the delay in service of the order vitiates the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr.DR

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 31.12.2018 arising from the assessment order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2009-10.

2.

As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.11,65,500/- made by the Assessing Officer by passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) dated 29.11.2016 and rectification thereafter under Section 154 dated 12.10.2017 on account of cash deposits in the bank account maintained with State Bank of India, Noida.

1.

3. With the assistance of the ld. counsel for the assessee, firstly we find that the first appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is cryptic and non descript. It is not discernible as to how the assessment order ceases to survive and is rendered infructuous as observed in the impugned order. The rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 stands merged with the original assessment order on rectification and does not render the original order as nonest.

4.

Secondly, in the instant case, the first appellate order is claimed to have been passed on 31.12.2018 whereas the order has been served/communicated to the assessee on 17.06.2019, i.e., after an inordinate delay of six months. Such inordinate delay has propensity to induce disquiet in the mind of the tax payer and cast aspersions on the fair conduct on the part of revenue. The CIT(A) is expected to follow the guiding principles in letter and spirit as provided in CBDT Instruction No.20/2003 dated 23.12.2003 which was reiterated vide CBDT letter F.No.279/Misc. 53/2003 ITJ dated 19.06.2015. Another communication F.No. DGIT (Vig.) /HQ /SF/Appeals/2017-18/9959 dated 08.03.2018 was yet again issued by CBDT to give impetus to timely dispatch of orders passed by CIT(A) to shun any suspicious about backdating and mala fide intent. 5. Noticiably, the conclusion drawn by the first appellate authority appears to be prima facie arbitrary and bereft of any process of reasoning to come to a conclusion which is under challenge. 6. In this backdrop, without any expression on merits, we set aside summary order of the CIT(A) and restore the proceedings back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the grievance raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal

in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/06/2022.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →