NARAYAN B BHARTIYA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, JALNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1244/PUN/2018Status: PendingITAT Pune25 October 2022AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the failure to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee, when requested, violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order confirming an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as deemed dividend. A key ground was that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 148, despite a request from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed by the AO is bad in law due to non-furnishing of reasons for reopening under Section 148 to the assessee. Whether principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad dated 04-04-2018 for A.Y. 2010-11 as per the following grounds of appeal.

1. CIT has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). Appellant prays to delete the same.

2. On filing the return in response to 148 and asking for the “reason to belief” recorded by the AO. Said reason having not provided by the AO, the order passed by AO is bad in law. Appellant prays to so hold and cancel the order. 3. Appellant prays for cancellation of interest charged u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. Without prejudice appellant prays to reduce the interest in terms of sec. 234A(3) and 234B(3) and hold that interest u/s 233C is not chargeable. 5. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, modify and/or withdraw the ground/grounds as the occasion may demand.”

2.

This is 2018 matter and the hearing of this case has been going on for quite a long period of time. I also find that this case before me has arisen as a re-called matter. The hearing notice has been served on the assessee as per

2 ITA 1244 of 2018 Narayan B. Bhartiya A.Y. 2010-11 the registered address, still at the time of hearing none appeared for the assessee.

3.

I have perused materials available on record, the orders of subordinate authorities and considered the submissions of the ld. D.R. That on perusal of the grounds of appeal specifically ground No. (2), it is stated that as regards the notice issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the A.O the assessee had asked for reasons for such reopening of the assessment and what exactly are the reasons which led to the belief of the A.O that income assessed to tax has escaped the assessment. Admittedly, such reasons for reopening were not furnished to the assessee. The ld. D.R also conceded these facts. The ld. D.R further stated that this ground has not been raised before the ld. CIT(A). I find that this is purely a legal issue which goes to the root of the matter involving principles of natural justice where the reasons recorded by the A.O for reopening the assessment has not been furnished to the assessee irrespective of the request made by the said assessee. In view thereof, in the interest of justice, I set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the A.O to re-adjudicate as per law complying with the principles of natural justice.

4.

In the result, grounds of appeal are ` allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 25th October 2022.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →