PANDIT REALTOR P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

Brief facts of case are that assessee filed e-return of income on 06.11.2014 for assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.50,60,580/-. The return was picked up for scrutiny under CASS. The notice under Section 143(2) dated 21.09.2015 was issued. The assessee failed to respondent. Ld. AR Shri Rajiv Ahuja and Shri Ms. Neha Sidana appeared on 02.12.2016. Ld. AR provided details to previously issued questionnaire on 08.12.2016. On completion of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO through order dated 23.12.2016 made additions of Rs.1,50,16,127/-. 3. Against order dated 23.12.2016 of Ld.CIT(A), appellant/assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2018. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee through application dated 16.05.2015 under Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 raised additional grounds of appeal as under: 1. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has erred in law and on facts in not giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence, the assessment order passed is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the replies/documents before the AO.” 3

Learned Authorized Representative by referring to additional grounds of appeal submitted that assessee was issued notice dated 15.12.2016 as a final opportunity to discharge onus in substantiating the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of shareholders. The notice was posted on 16.12.2016 and received on 19.12.2016. Dates 20.12.2016 and 21.12.2016 were Saturday and Sunday. The impugned order was passed on 23.12.2016. So, the assessee was not given reasonable opportunity of setting up his case. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Co. Vs. CIT [2001] 116 Taxman 491 (SC). 7. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue relied on orders of Departmental Authorities. 8. From examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival submission, it is crystal clear that final opportunity dated 15.12.2016 was put to post on 06.12.2016 and received on 19.12.2016, 20.12.2016 and 21.12.2016 were Saturday and Sunday. Assessment order was passed on 23.12.2016. So, the assessee was given final opportunity of two days. As per ratio of judgment in Tin Box Co. Vs. CIT, is case (supra), it is well settled law that assessment order must be passed after the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to set up his case. 4

In view of above facts and well settled principles of law, the impugned order is not just, fair, reasonable and legal. The additional ground of appeal nos. 1 and 2 are allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.12.2016 of Ld. AO and dated 28.11.2018 of Ld.CIT(A) are set aside. In interest of justice, the subject matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh decision in accordance with law. The appellant/assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of hearing. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/05/2025. ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (VIMAL KUMAR)