J.S. FINVEST(P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9423/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 June 2022AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard and verified notice service. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) who assumed the assessee was not interested in pursuing it. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 31,00,76,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit without verifying notice service.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming additions without proper notice service and opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. YOGESH KUMAR US

Hearing: 16/06/2022Pronounced: 16/06/2022

Date of hearing: 16/06/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 16/06/2022 ORDER

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-5, New Delhi dated 30.09.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2016-17.

2.

The grievance of the assessee read as under :-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by erroneously

assuming that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition assuming the appellant is not interest

in pursuing the appeal even though the appellant did not receive the said notices.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.31,00,76,000/- made by the AO

on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income

Tax Act even when indisputably the aforesaid sum was not received during the year under consideration.

3.

A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) show that the CIT(A) is heavily influenced by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. N. Bhattacharjee and Another 118 ITR 461. We further find that the CIT(A) has also followed the decision of the Hon’ble M. P. High Court 223 ITR 480 and without going much on the merits of the case dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

In our considered view the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and should have verified whether the notices issued by him were actually served upon the assessee or not.

5.

Before us the counsel for the assessee fairly stated that he is willing to appear before the CIT(A) if the date is given by the Bench here itself.

6.

The DR put no objection.

7.

In the interest of justice and fair play we restore this appeal to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) on 29.09.2022 in whatever mode the appeal may be heard by the first appellate authority.

8.

The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Decision announced in the open court on 16.06.2022. 9.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →