Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
ORDER The assessee filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) 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 not admitting the appeal of assessee and that too without any basis, material and evidences available on record and further erred in wrongly assuming that the assessee had not filed the return whereas assessee is regular income tax assessee and has filed returns for all years including the impugned year.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) wrongly decided the appeal ex-parte and that too by making false and incorrect allegations and further erred in law and on facts ignoring and disregarding the request for adjournment petition dated 26.06.2018 which was duly submitted in his office, therefore, the action of Ld. CIT(A) in passing the impugned order is highly unfair, unjustified and is passed without following the principles of natural justice.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making following apparent/glaring errors which needs to be rectified: • Ld. CIT(A) stated in the order that assessee has not filed the return u/s 139(1), 139(4) nor u/s 148 whereas the fact is that assessee has regularly assessed in Delhi and issuance of notice u/s 148 and completing the reassessment order by the non- jurisdictional Assessing Officer which is illegal. • In para 3 of the impugned order Ld. CIT(A) stated that dispute regarding cash deposits of Rs. 12,00,000/- whereas this is not the dispute at all as is evident from the assessment order. • That no compliance of notices was issued whereas only one notice was issued on 12.06.2018 fixing the case for 26.06.2018. On this date request for adjournment was filed which was not considered. • In taking the assessed income at Rs. 36,63,300/- instead of Rs. 36,50,300/- as is evident from plain reading of assessment order.
4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in passing the impugned order is illegal, bad in law, has been made on the basis of presumptions, surmises and conjectures and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deciding the appeal of the assessee on the basis of grounds of appeal
raised in appeal memo.
6. 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 on the following grounds: • That the assumption of jurisdiction in passing the impugned reassessment order u/s 144/147 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. • That the AO did not have the jurisdiction over the assessee. • That reassessment order was wrongly passed ex- parte. • That no notice u/s 148 was served upon the assessee. • That reasons were wrongly recorded by Ld. AO and that too without independent and judicious mind. • That assumption of jurisdiction is also bad for the reason that the approval accorded by the competent authority is in a mechanical manner and is also without independent application of mind. • That copy of reasons/approval was not provided to assessee and thus mandate of law was not followed before framing the reassessment order. • That impugned reassessment order was passed without complying with other mandatory conditions as per law.
7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the addition of Rs. 36,50,300/- made by Ld. AO on account of investment in purchase of property, more so when property was purchased on the basis of secured loan from ICICI Bank.
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 charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
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.”
Facts narrated by the Revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, no need to repeat the same for the sake of convenience.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee draw my attention towards impugned order dated 29.06.2018 stated that Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order against the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He requested that the issue in dispute may be set aside to the Ld. First Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh as per law after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon by the orders passed by the Revenue authorities, but did not strongly oppose the request of Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
I have heard both the parties, perused the relevant record available with me including the orders passed by the Revenue authorities and I am of the view that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has decided the issue in dispute against the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. This is contrary to the principle of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, issues in dispute are set aside to the Ld. First Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh as per law after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.