SATYAVIR SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 62(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2537/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 March 2020AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed reassessment proceedings and additions made under Section 68. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and whether additions under Section 68 were justified without proper enquiry.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Garg, CA

This appeal is filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-38], New Delhi dated 17.1.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO for initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.

2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO for not making proper enquiry before making addition u/s. 68.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 12,73,400/- for cash deposit in bank u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of only blank account.

4. The impugned order passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal exparte is bad in law, against the principle of natural justice is liable to be quashed.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in non consideration of the appeal on merits makes the impugned order bad in law and liable to be quashed.

6. That the appellant craves for the permission to add, modify, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal.

2. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being herd to the assessee. 4.1 Keeping in view of the non-cooperation of the assessee, I am directing the assessee through his counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 04.05.2020 at 10.00 am for hearing. There is no need to issue the notice by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, since this order has already been pronounced in the open court. 5. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced on 02.03.2020. Sd/-

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →