HASEEN AHMED,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7481/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 February 2020AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after admitting additional evidence. This was due to the issue of improper service of notice during the assessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arises from an assessment order passed under section 144, where additions were made on account of cash deposits. The assessee claimed that notices were not properly served, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits, rejecting additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment made under section 144 is valid when notices were allegedly not served on the assessee, and whether additional evidence should be admitted at the appellate stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 29.01.2020Pronounced: 18.02.2020

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by CIT(A)-Meerut, for Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. “That the assessee made u/s 144 is against the facts and law because no notice u/s 148/144 was ever served upon the assessee, even assessment order also not served. Therefore, the assessee counsel obtained certified copy of the assessment order. The assessee trying to obtain the assessee reasons recorded u/s 148 and approval, hence, assessment made u/s 144 is against the facts and law and CIT(A) is in error u/s 148, dismiss this ground without giving the finding on service of notice is also bad in law.

2. That the A.O has made addition on account of cash deposit in bank of Rs. 21,96,542/- without considering the withdrawal, which was redeposit in the bank. The CIT(A) has not decide this issue in merit of the case, hence the finding of CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice.

3. That in the bank account the assessee has deposited the money on account of sale and the assessee already shown the net profit by invoking the provision u/s 44AD of I.T. Act. Therefore, the A.O has not justified in making addition as unexplained. The CIT (A) is in error to decide this issue on merit.”

3.

The assessment was completed u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act at a total income of Rs. 21,96,542/- on the basis of information received of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee.

4.

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

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not decided the case on merit and simply rejected all the additional evidence produced before him. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not attend the assessment proceedings as the notice was not served on the assessee. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer by admitting the additional evidence and after taking cognizance of the additional evidence proper assessment order should be passed.

6.

The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was given proper opportunity of hearing which was not availed by the assessee despite several notices. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly passed best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that the CIT (A) has rightly rejected additional evidence at a later stage. Hence, the Ld. DR submitted that the appeal of the assessee be dismissed.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It will be appropriate to remand back this matter by admitting the additional evidence at this stage as the notice was not properly served by the Assessing Officer on the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer is directed to take cognizance of the additional evidence and accordingly pass the fresh assessment order. 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, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18th February, 2020.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →