SRI PANDAB CHANDRA PAUL,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AGARTALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 367/GTY/2013Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 December 2019AY 2006-072 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument that a best judgment assessment was rightly made. The assessment records did not indicate that the Assessing Officer had issued a show-cause notice or stated the assessee's default under Section 144(1). Therefore, the best judgment assessment was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2006-07 was against a best judgment assessment made under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer initiated this assessment due to the assessee's failure to file details in response to a notice under Section 142(1).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer correctly resorted to a best judgment assessment without issuing a show-cause notice or properly documenting the assessee's default.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, GAUHATI BENCH “E” COURT AT KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

आदेश /O R D E R PER BEMCH:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Shillong’s order dated 30.03.2013 passed in case No.AGT-12/2008-09 involving proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the learned representatives. Case file perused.

2.

The first and foremost preliminary issue that arises for our apt adjudication in the instant lis is that of correctness of Assessing Officer’s action taking recourse of sec. 144 “best judgment assessment”. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the corresponding assessment to this effect dated 30.12.2008 attributes assessee’s failure to file relevant details

ITA No.367/Gau/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Sh. Pandab Ch. Paul Vs. ITO Wd-3 Agar Page 2 in pursuance to sec. 142(1) notice dated 30.09.2008. The Revenue’s case accordingly is that since assessee had not file on record the details sought in above scrutiny notice the Assessing Officer rightly took recourse to “best judgment assessment” against him. We find no merit in Revenue’s foregoing arguments. The assessment notings in the instant case from 25.04.2007 to 30.12.2008 form part of case record before us. The same nowhere indicate about the Assessing Officer’s having either issued any such show-cause to the assessee. Nor he stated assessee’s default u/s 144(1) (a to c). We agree assessee’ legal plea on this count alone as per hon'ble Calcutta high court’s decision in Mohini Debi Malpani vs. ITO (1969) 77 ITR 674 (Cal) to quash the impugned “best judgment assessment” therefore. His other substantive grounds on merits are rendered academic.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court 18/12/2019 Sd/- Sd/- (A.L.Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) Judicial Member) Kolkata, *Dkp �दनांकः- 18/12/2019 कोलकाता/। आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-Sri Pandab Ch Paul, Prop: M/s Sham Sundar Tea House, M.G. Bazar P.O. Agartala, West Tripura 2. ��यथ� /Respondent-ITO Ward-3, City Centre, P.O.Agartala, West Tripura 3. संबं*धत आयकर आयु-त / Concerned CIT Guahati 4. आयकर आयु-त- अपील / CIT (A) Guahati 5. 0वभागीय �3त3न*ध, आयकर अपील�य अ*धकरण, / DR, ITAT, Guahati 6. गाड7 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, /True Copy/ Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील�य अ*धकरण, गूवाहाठ� ।

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →