MANGHANI RE ROLLING LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8173/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 February 2020AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. The assessee did not appear for the hearing before the ITAT, and the notice sent to their address was returned with remarks indicating the company was not at that location.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and not providing proper opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Whether reassessment proceedings and additions made were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 68,Section 147,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-15, New Delhi dated 30.7.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing exparte order.

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing order with providing proper opportunity of being heard. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal

on merit.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued in the case is bad in law, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation and illegal and, therefore, the said notice alongwith the assessment order passed by the assessing officer on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer is contrary to specific provisions of section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, the said reassessment proceeding initiated alongwith the assessment order passed by the AO on the foundation of such proceeding are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.

7.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of share application money / share capital. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case ad in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 18,000/- made by the AO in respect of alleged unexplained expenditure. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the additions of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- made by the Assessing Officer are beyond the scope of jurisdiction and provisions of section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred a not holding so. The appellant craves leave to add one or more ground of appeal

or to alter / modify the existing ground before or at the time of hearing of appeal. The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

2. In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor its authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. However, the notice received back with the postal remarks that “On enquiry, it has come to knowledge that on Plot No. 21 no company of this name is there Sd/- 05.2.2020.” It is also noted that no new address has been given by the assessee before the Registry. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issues involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 2

3.

Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order.

4.

I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the orders of the authorities below. I find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Hence, in my view 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. I hold and direct accordingly. 4.1 Keeping in view of the non-cooperation of the assessee, I am directing the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 29.04.2020 at 10.00 am for hearing. 5. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced on 19.02.2020. Sd/-

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →