DINESH NEMICHAND,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1030/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 June 2020AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found a gross violation of principles of natural justice as the CIT(A) did not decide the legal issue raised by the assessee. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide the legal issue and pass a reasoned order on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order for violating principles of natural justice. The assessee argued that an investigation report and statements relied upon for additions were not provided, and the right to cross-examine was denied.

What were the issues?

Whether the authorities below violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the investigation report and statements, and denying the right to cross-examine witnesses.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K GARODIA & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT –

ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 25/01/2017 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-5 for assessment year 2012-13. Ld. A.R. at the outset emphasised on ground No. 2.1 of the present appeal wherein the impugned order has been challenged for gross violated of principles of natural Justice.

She submitted that the investigation report was not provided to assessee and authorities below have not granted opportunity of cross-examining the persons who statement have been relied upon for making addition in the hands of assessee. Referring to para 6.4 of impugned order she submitted that, in written submission filed before Ld. CIT (A), on 21/10/2016, placed at page 40-64 of paper book, at page 53 assessee has raised the legal plea of violation of principles of natural Justice for following reasons: (a) information received from investigation wing Mumbai has not been furnished (b) statements of Sh. Sachin Parikh and Sh. Rajendra Jain which have been relied upon for purpose of addition have not been provided. (c ) the right to cross examine the above persons have not been afforded. Ld. senior DR though relied upon the orders passed by authorities below, submitted that the issue may be sent back to learnt CIT (A) to decide the issue in accordance with law. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. It is observed that authorities below have relied upon certain statements and the report from investigation wing for making addition in the hands of assessee. As Ld.CIT(A) has not decided legal issue raised by assessee, we are of the opinion that, there is gross violated of principles of natural Justice. We accordingly set aside this issue to Ld.CIT(A) to decide the legal issue and pass a reasoned order. Ld.CIT(A) is also directed to pass a speaking order on merits afresh. Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th June 2020. Sd/- Sd/- (A.K GARODIA) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 11/06/2020 /Vms/ Copy to:

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →