SRI GOLAYYA HIREMATH CONTRACTOR,KALABURAGI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KALABURAGI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 992/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 January 2020AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not adjudicate the disputed issue of the validity of the Section 148 notice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed expenditure without TDS deduction, leading to disallowance and reassessment. The assessee challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice, arguing that valid reasons were not recorded or provided.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 without proper recording and communication of reasons. The CIT(Appeals) failed to provide findings on this legal challenge.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALEShri Golayya Hiremath,

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Hearing: 28.11.2019Pronounced: 03.01.2020

O R D E R

PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :

1.

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gulbarga passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

3.

The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of execution of civil contract works and filed the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on 31.08.2009 with total income of Rs.36,67,130 and assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act dt.29.11.2011 was completed with the total income of Rs.42,30,430. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued Notice under Section 148 of the Act and in response the assessee filed a letter on 5.2.2015 to treat the Return of Income filed on 31.08.2009 as due compliance. In the reassessment proceedings, the learned Authorised Representative appeared from time to time. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has claimed the expenditure of hire charges, transport charges and Audit fees without deduction of TDS on payments and made disallowance of claims for non-deduction of TDS and assessed the total income of Rs.1,31,09,020 and passed order under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 147 of the Act dt.7.1.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The assessee has challenged the validity of issue of Notice under Section 148 of the Act and other grounds of appeal

. Whereas the CIT(Appeals) concurred with action of Assessing Officer and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee has filed an appeal with the Tribunal.

4. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative has restricted his arguments on the legal issue of Notice under Section 148 of the Act which is bad in law further the CIT(Appeals) has not given any findings on the disputed issues where the assessee has challenged as illegal and prayed for allowing the

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →