GRAND CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2 (1), INDORE, INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 481/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 January 2025AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the submissions and the principles of natural justice and fair play, deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) for fresh adjudication. The JAO is directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by the JAO and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. Failure to do so will empower the JAO to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Grand Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the CIT(A), which arose from an assessment order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the ITO-2(1), Indore, under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The initial appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the ITAT on 09.05.2024 due to improper verification of Form No. 36. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh valid appeal within 30 days. The present appeal, ITA No. 481/Ind/2024, was filed on 03.06.2024, within the granted period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid, considering the alleged non-service of notices due to an incorrect address? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the AO passed the assessment order ex-parte because the notices under Section 142(1) were returned undelivered. The assessee contended that these notices were sent to an old address and were not served as the assessee's address had changed. The AO made an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- based on a search in the case of Mr. Vipul Bhatt. The assessee denied the allegations and sought an opportunity to make adequate representation before the AO, requesting the matter be restored for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not object to the case being remanded to the AO but requested that the case be remanded to the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) and that the assessee be directed to represent its case without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 142(1),Section 140

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dafaria, CA & AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.01.2025Pronounced: 27.01.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 11.10.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 06.12.2017 passed by learned ITO-2(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]

Page 1 of 4 for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

2.

Originally, the assessee filed against impugned order without proper verification in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). Therefore, the ITAT, Indore bench dismissed assessee’s appeal vide order dated 09.05.2024 as under:

“4.2 Thus, it is clear that the Form number 36 has not been verified by the person who is prescribed as per section 140 r.w. Rule 47(1) and Rule 45(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and consequently the present appeal of the assessee is not valid appeal. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine being not a valid appeal. The assessee is at liberty to file a fresh valid appeal within a period of 30 days from this order.”

3.

Subsequently, the assessee has filed the present appeal registered as 09.05.2024 as per liberty granted by ITAT. Therefore, the present appeal before us is considered well within time and proceeded for hearing.

4.

Ld. AR for assessee drew us to Para 4 and 5 of assessment-order and submitted that the AO has passed assessment-order ex-parte to assessee

Page 2 of 4 u/s 144 after observing that the notices u/s 142(1) sent by him were returned back. Ld. AR submitted that the AO sent notices to old address which was given by assessee at some point of time in past but thereafter the address of assessee has changed. Therefore, the notices sent by AO were not served upon assessee. Ld. AR next submitted that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the hands of assessee based on search conducted in case of one Mr. Vipul Bhatt and his related entities. However, the assessee completely denies any allegation levelled by AO and wants to make an adequate representation before AO. Therefore, the present matter should be restored at the level of AO for adjudication afresh after hearing assessee.

5.

Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the case is remanded to AO but makes twin-requests, namely (i) the case should be remanded to Jurisdictional AO [“JAO”] and (ii) the assessee should be directed to represent his case before JAO without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

6.

Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this Page 3 of 4 matter back to the file of JAO for a fresh adjudication, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The JAO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by JAO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the JAO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

7.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced by putting on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 27/01/2025

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →