SHRI DIWAKARAN SURENDRAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3253/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 February 2020AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. The AO is required to consider the additional evidence and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) confronted the assessee with information from creditors on December 28, 2017, and passed the assessment order on December 29, 2017. The assessee argued that insufficient opportunity was provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee after obtaining information under Section 133(6) before passing the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM

For Respondent: Shri Kabila H, JCIT DR
Hearing: 05.02.2020Pronounced: 12.02.2020

O R D E R

PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, AM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assesse and it is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 7 Bengaluru dated 01.01.2018.

2.

Apart from grounds on merit, this is one of the grounds raised

by the assessee that the learned CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the assessment order in spite of this that the AO failed to give opportunity after obtaining details u/s 133 (6) which is apparent from this fact alone that the AO confronted the details on 28.12.2017 and passed the order on 29.12.2017.

3. In course of hearing, learned AR of the assessee submitted that it is noted by the AO in Para 5 on page 4 of the assessment order that vide order sheet entry on 28.12.2017, the issue about difference in the amount as per the books of the assessee and reply of two creditors M/s Fine Foot wear (P) Ltd. And M/s SS Impex was specifically raised with the assessee. He submitted that the assessment order is passed by the AO on 29.12.2017 with this finding that the (B)/2018 Page 2 of 2 assessee could not give evidence in this regard. He submitted that from these facts, it is apparent that sufficient opportunity was not provided by the AO and in spite of this, learned CIT (A) did not admit additional evidence. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to AO for fresh decision.

4.

We have considered the rival submission. In the interest of justice and in the facts of the present case, we admit the additional evidence and restore the entire matter back to AO for a fresh decision after considering the additional evidence and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →