What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed under Section 144 and that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The assessee filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 144 at a significantly higher income. The CIT(A) provided partial relief. The assessee contended that inadequate opportunity of hearing was granted by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of hearing during the assessment proceedings completed under Section 144.

Smt. Snehal Mangesh Patil, Satara vs ACIT | ITAT Pune 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei

आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-2, Pune on 03-10-2017 in relation to the Assessment Year 2003-04.

We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee filed her return with total income of Rs.6,99,470/-. In the assessment completed u/s.144 of the Income-tax, Act, 1961

2 ITA No.459/PUN/2018 Smt. Snehal Mangesh Patil

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the AO determined the

total income at Rs.1.06 crore. The ld. CIT(A) allowed partial

relief by dismissing several grounds raised by the assessee. In

view of the fact that the assessment was completed u/s.144 of

the Act, the ld. AR submitted that inadequate opportunity of

hearing was granted by the AO and one more opportunity of

putting forth the case be afforded. In such circumstances, we

are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would

meet adequately if the impugned order is set-aside and the

matter is restored to the file of AO. We order accordingly and

direct him to make the assessment afresh as per law after

allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the

assessee.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th January, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 15th January, 2019 सतीश

3 ITA No.459/PUN/2018 Smt. Snehal Mangesh Patil

आदेश क� क� क� �ित क� �ित �ितिलिप �ित िलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश िलिप िलिप 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT (Appeals)-2, Pune The Pr.CIT-1, Pune 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय 5. अिधकरण, पुणे “A” / DR ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड% फाईल / Guard file. // True copy //

आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA No.459/PUN/2018 Smt. Snehal Mangesh Patil

Date 1. Draft dictated on 14-01-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 14-01-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *

SMT. SNEHAL MANGESH PATIL,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments