SANGEETA MANOJKUMAR JAIN,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 786/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 April 2025AY 2016-17Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the assessee had decided to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested an adjournment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3. The assessee's grounds of appeal primarily relate to the Pr. CIT's order passed u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr. CIT erred in passing an ex-parte order u/s.263 without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard and if the issues sought to be revised were already examined.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69C,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

Hearing: 07.04.2025Pronounced: 23.04.2025

आदेश/ORDER PER : DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad, relating to the Assessment Year 2016- 17.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad has erred in passing an ex parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed.

2. The Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Ahmedabad has erred in passing an order u/s.263 of the 1.T. Act, 1961 without considering the reply dtd.08.02.2024 filed online by the appellant on 10.02.2024 3. The Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Ahmedabad has erred in passing an order u/s.263 of the LT. Act, 1961 setting aside the Assessment Order passed u/s,147 R.W.S.144B of the 1.T. Act, 1961 dtd.23.03.2022 and directing the Assessing officer to make fresh assessment order making addition of unexplained commission u/s.69C of the Act for the addition made by him of Rs.39,17,900/- for alleged unexplained money. 4. The Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Ahmedabad has erred in passing an order u/s.263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 since the issues sought to be revised have been examined in the assessment proceedings hence the same being illegal and bad in law requires to be quashed. 5. The Learned Pr. Comm. of Income Tax 3, Ahmedabad has erred in not appreciating the fact that all information and related material and evidences had been furnished at the assessment stage relating to the issues raised in the revision proceedings. The A.O. after examining the evidences and other material considering the same after due application of mind has passed the assessment order and therefore the same cannot be termed as erroneous. 6. The Learned Pr. Comm. of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad has erred in not considering the facts that assessment has been made by the Assessing Officer after verification of records, documents, material and evidences produced by the appellant during the course of assessment proceeding for which revision proceedings have been initiated.

7.

The Learned Pr. Comm. of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad has erred in passing an order u/s.263 of the Act directing the A.O. for making addition u/s.69C of the Act in respect of unaccounted commission on the addition made by A.O. of Rs.39,17,900/-u/s.68 of the Act for alleged accommodation entry when the issue has been examined by the AO and there is no material to suggest that such commission has been paid or accommodation entry has been taken by the assessee.

8.

The Learned Pr. Comm. of Income Tax 3, Ahmedabad has erred in not considering the fact that issue raised by him in revision proceedings for making addition of Commission expenditure u/s.69C of the Act on the alleged accommodation entry of Rs.39,17,900/- appellant has already filed an appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment u/s. 147 rws 144B of the Act.

9.

The Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Ahmedabad has erred in assumption jurisdiction and initiated revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act on issues which are subject matter of appeal. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.

3.

At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that he has decided to opt for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and consequently requested for adjournment of the case.

4.

In light of written adjournment and the reason thereof the appeal is dismissed. However, in the event, the assessee fails to avail the benefit of VSV Scheme for any bonafide reasons, then the assessee concerned will be at liberty to seek restoration of original appeal for hearing before ITAT in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →