SANJAY MAHUR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD- 3(2), BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 479/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 November 2019AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. The assessee argued that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity for hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were valid without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and whether reassessment proceedings were initiated as per law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 68,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Adv. & Sh

ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Aligarh relating to Assessment Year 2009-10 on the following grounds.

1.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned ex-parte order and that too without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and without observing the principles of natural justice.

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order uls 144/147 and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not quashing the impugned reassessment order u/s 144/147, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case; Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 144/147 and that too without serving the mandatory notices uls 143(2) and 142(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned ex-pate order passed by Ld. AO uls 144/147 and that too without serving show cause notice u/s 144 and without giving proper opportunity of hearing as prescriber under the law.

6.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.12,64,000/- on account of cash deposit by treating it as alleged cash credit u/s 68 and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.

7.

That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.12,64,000/- on account of cash deposits u/s 68, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.

8.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in taking the returned income at NIL instead of Rs.1,47,990/- as mentioned in the assessment order.

9.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961.

10.

That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.

2.

The assessee has raised 10 grounds of appeal, but at the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee only argued that Ld. CIT(A) as well as AO have passed their exparte orders without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating his case. Hence, he requested that issues in dispute may be set aside to the file of the AO, because the assessee is having all the necessary documentary evidences for substantiating the claim which can only be verified/investigated by the AO.

3.

Ld. Sr. DR has not raised any objection on the request of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

4.

I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities. I am of the view that AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144/147 of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has also passed the exparte impugned order dated 30.10.2017. Therefore, in my considered view and in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute require thorough investigation/verification at the level of the Assessing Officer.

Accordingly, the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed through his counsel to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 05/11/2019.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →