What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds challenging jurisdiction as they went to the root of the matter. Since these grounds were not raised before the CIT(A), there was no factual discussion. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The assessee, a civil contractor, claims to have been poorly represented by his counsel at both the assessment and first appellate stages. This led to additions to his income and the rejection of fresh evidence by the CIT(A). The assessee sought to raise fresh grounds challenging jurisdiction, specifically the lack of a notice under Section 143(2).

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate on fresh grounds of jurisdiction, including the validity of notice under Section 143(2), especially when the assessee claims inadequate representation.

Ijajuddin vs ITO | s.143(2) | ITAT Delhi 2019

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

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 13.06.2019Pronounced: 24.06.2019

PER DIVA SINGH: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the Order dated 27.03.2018 of CIT(A)-Ghaziabad, pertaining to 2009-10 Assessment Year on various grounds on merit. Application has also been moved praying for admission of fresh grounds challenging the departmental action on jurisdiction for want of notice u/s 143(2) etc. 2. The Ld. AR at the time of hearing addressing the application made a prayer for admission of additional grounds. It was also his submission that in the facts of the present case the assessee has not been properly represented by his Counsel both at the assessment stage and again at the stage of the First Appellate Authority. It was submitted by the ld. AR that before the A.O. the assessee was represented by Sh. Dharam Raj Singh, Advocate and submissions to the said extent were advanced before the CIT(A) by another counsel and these were been extracted in the impugned Order at internal page 4, however the said counsel also failed to address the jurisdictional shortcoming available ITA No.:- 4356/Del/2018 Ijajuddin. on record before the CIT(A). It was his submission that as a result of these reasons the assessee had to make a prayer for admission of fresh evidences before the CIT(A) which also has not been considered by the CIT(A) appropriately as she has dismissed it on the ground that fresh evidence was not moved by way of application under Rule 46A. It was his submission that the assessee was represented by another Counsel Mr. Dharam Raj Singh, Adv. and after the carelessness of the counsels, the assessee has again changed counsel. In the facts of the present case it was his submission that the additions made and sustained may be deleted alternately jurisdictional challenge posed in the additional ground be adjudicated upon.

The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, submitted that on the jurisdictional issue there is no finding and it appears from the Order that the assessee infact did not appear before the CIT(A) as no oral representations are found to be made and instead has merely relied upon some written submissions. In the absence of any discussion on the jurisdictional issue which was not raised before the CIT(A) the matter may be remanded. Admission of fresh grounds was not opposed, however it was his submission that the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(A) as in the absence of any discussion on facts he was not in a position to make any submission.

I have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. In the facts of the present case it is seen that the assessee is pleaded to be a “semi illiterate” person working as a civil contractor who is stated to have engaged Mr. Dharam Raj Singh, Adv. at the assessment stage. The said counsel was faulted on the grounds of having failed to place the necessary documents etc. before the AO as a result of this the deposits in the bank accounts were treated as his income resulting in addition of Rs. 34,36,079/-. It is seen that before the CIT(A) the assesse relied upon some written submissions, admittedly application under Rule 46 was not moved. It is seen that the lapses on account of Mr. Dharam Raj Singh, Adv. were mentioned before the said authority which submissions have been extracted in the impugned Order at page 4. Considering the submissions of the parties the Page 2 of 3

IJAJUDDIN,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), GHAZIABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments