SURINDER KAUR,PATIALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 777/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 January 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) and was prevented by sufficient cause from attending the proceedings. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2016-17. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r/w 263, bringing to tax Rs. 16,92,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. The CIT(A) sustained the order on account of non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 15/05/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) r/w 263 vide order dt. 28/03/2022 wherein an amount of Rs. 16,92,000/- has been brought to tax as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said order on account of non-prosecution on behalf of the assessee.

3.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. It was submitted that the notices so issued by him has not been served on the assessee and therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from attending to the proceedings before CIT(A). It was further submitted that even on merits, no finding has been recorded by the ld CIT(A). It was accordingly submitted that assessee be allowed one last opportunity and the matter may be remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh and it was submitted that the assessee shall attend to the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and file the necessary information/documentation.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that notices have been issued on the email ids provided by the Assessee and there have been sufficient opportunity given to the assessee and has relied on the order of the lower authorities.

6.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on the record, we find that the assessee deserves one more opportunity and cannot be condemned unheard and therefore, keeping in view principles of substantial justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

7.

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

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →