Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The assessee contended that the reassessment was bad in law as the reasons for reopening differed from the grounds for additions, and that the CIT(A) did not consider their submissions and additional evidence, violating natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the assessee's submissions filed on 11.03.2025, despite the order being passed on 12.03.2025. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings were valid and if the CIT(A) had considered all submissions and evidence before passing the order.
Sections Cited
147, 250, 69A, 64(1A), 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai dated 12.03.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and fact by not considering that the "reasons to believe" recorded by the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act were different from the grounds on which the Assessing officer made the additions. Thus, if the reassessment is made on grounds not mentioned in the original reasons to believe, the entire reassessment is bad in law and hence void-ab-initio.
2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in law and facts by passing the impugned order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.03.2025, without considering, the written submissions and detailed explanation filed by the appellant on 11.03.2025 in response to the notice issued under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law by not considering that the appellant has filed the additional evidence filed by the appellant under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, along with a submissions made during the appellate proceedings before CIT(A) to substantiate the claim of the appellant. Further Acknowledgement copy of the aforesaid additional evidence and Submissions made has been received by the appellant online on 11.03.2025.
4. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law by not considering the appellant's explanations, documentation, and evidence placed on record, thereby passing an order that is bad in law. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the additions made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of clubbing of income of minor children NehanDhiren Gala and Kierra Dhiren Gala amounting to Rs.2,53,500/- & Rs.3,17,000/- respectively with mother's income i.e appellant Shebani Gala without considering the provisions of section 64(1A) of the Income Tax wherein the income of minor children is clubbed with the income of that parent whose income (excluding minor's income) is higher, which in case of the appellant was the appellant's spouse.
5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and fact by not appreciating the fact that it is a settled principle of law that no addition can be sustained in reassessment proceedings unless it is based on the specific reasons recorded for reopening. Additions beyond the scope of such reasons are void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
The appellant states that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in law and fact by not passing a speaking order on the aforesaid matter or rebut the appellant’s grounds of appeal by any evidence contradicting the appellant’s submissions.
7. In view of the above the appellant order be set aside, the addition under section 69A of Rs. 9,28,100/- be deleted.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and / or withdraw the aforesaid grounds of appeal.”
Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused.
The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that he was not given fair and reasonable opportunity by assessing officer. The assessing officer passed the ex-parte order without giving opportunity to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) fixed hearing of appeal only on two occasions and show cause notices. On second date of hearing the assessee filed submission on 11.03.2025. The ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 12.03.2025 without considering such submission. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that since ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal without considering the submission filed by assessee, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A).
He undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance.
On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that the ld. CIT(A) vide his notice dated 03.03.2025 asked the assessee to make compliance / written submission by 10.03.2025. The assessee filed reply on 11.03.2003.
Though the order is passed on 12.03.2025 but such submission of assessee was not considered. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to ld. CIT(A) to consider the submission of assessee and passed the order afresh. The assessee is also directed to file his submission afresh as and when directed by ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.