GURMEET KAUR,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURUKSHETRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 934/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 June 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to make an effective representation before the lower authorities. Considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the case to the AO for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from an order of the CIT(A) confirming an assessment framed by the AO on a best judgment basis under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act. The sole grievance was an addition of Rs. 108.39 Lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was given a fair opportunity to present their case, and if not, whether the assessment should be set aside to allow for a de novo assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012- 13 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26- 10-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29-11-2019. The sole grievance of the assessee is addition of Rs.108.39 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The registry has noted delay of 250 days in the appeal, which stand condoned.

2.

Upon perusal of orders of lower authorities, it could be seen that the assessee has failed to make any effective representation therein. The Ld. AR has stated that the assessee has sufficient evidences to demonstrate the source of impugned investment.

3.

Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the possibility of communication gaps during faceless regime, we deem it fit to afford another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. AO. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the assessment is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 02-06-2025. (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 02-06-2025. आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →