PRAMOD KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5911/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 February 2020AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A). However, as the appeal was not decided on merits, it was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed to have sufficient cause for non-appearance and argued that additions were made without merit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's grounds and whether the notice u/s 148 was issued without jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 25.02.2020

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30/5/2018 passed by CIT(A)-20, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh for Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:- 1. “Because, learned commissioner of income tax erred, in dismissing the appeal ex-party as the appellant was prevented with sufficient cause for non- compliance on the last date of hearing hence order is against the principal of natural justice.

2. Because, learned commissioner of income tax erred in appreciate that all the addition are without any material /basis against the assessee but merely to punish assessee who could not present his case, but he again sustained all the addition ex-party without considering merits of addition with some purposeful enquiry with proper opportunity more so when addition are high pitched and punitive.

3. Because, without prejudice to above and as an alternative, learned commissioner of income tax erred in not appreciating that the notice issued u/s 148 of Act Is beyond jurisdiction being without any 'reason to believe' and ' satisfaction' of AO or of the superior authority and is issued in a mechanical manner without any application of mind merely to verify AIR information and to conduct roving enquiries of cash deposit which is beyond the scope of provision of 147/148/151 hence subsequent proceedings and consequent order is illegal.

4. Because, the leaned commissioner of income tax (A) grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1128875/-/-, being Investment of purchase of property, in whole disregard of the fact that the assesse has purchased these property from the cash of his business withdrawal/cash balance/ gift received from relatives. Therefore, in terms of above grounds, it is hereby prayed that the notice u/s 148 and assessment framed may kindly be quashed though only as an alternative it is also prayed that the addition made by Id. CIT(A) of Rs. 1128875/-/-may kindly be quashed.

3. The assessee is earning the commission income during the Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee purchased immovable property for Rs. 42,20,000/- jointly with three other co-owners in which share of investment made by the assessee was Rs. 1,55,000/-. The Assessing Officer made addition as the assessee has not complied with the notices issued u/s 148,142(1), 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) as the appeal is not decided on merit by the CIT(A) and no hearing was granted to the assessee.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the order of the CIT(A) can be seen that the notice were issued to the assessee and none appeared before the CIT(A) despite giving several opportunity. The assessee has not made out any case as regards to the non appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are imposing cost of Rs. 2,000/- which should be paid by the assessee to the Prime Minister’s relief fund. Since, the appeal is not decided on merit it will be appropriate to remand back this appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Thus appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

8.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26th FEBRUARY, 2020.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →