AZAD SINGH,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD - 1, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 307/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 December 2021AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s order confirming an ex parte assessment. The assessee argued that they were not given a meaningful opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer and that the CIT(A) failed to address their contentions.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte assessment proceedings were valid and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.12.2021

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- Rohtak, dated 08/11/2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO although the proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act are invalid and without jurisdiction.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in making assessment ex parte u/s 144 of the Act.

4.

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 16,00,700/- made by the Ld. AO on account of cash deposited in bank account by the appellant.

5.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had passed order ex parte to the assessee. The assessee was not given any meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Authority. Further, he submitted that the issues and submissions raised by the Ld. CIT(A) did not advert and decided by the Ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the assessment be restored to the file of the Assessing Authority to frame assessment afresh.

3.

On the contrary, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative opposed the submissions and submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity. The assessee was negligent or not pursuing the matter.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →