MITHLESH,DADRI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), NOIDA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also quashed the assessment order, finding the notice under Section 148 to be bad in law due to the existence of parallel proceedings.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance, with the assessee claiming they did not receive the hearing notice. The ITAT noted that two separate notices under Section 148 were issued for the same assessment year, leading to parallel assessment proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance was justified, and whether the assessment order was valid when two parallel assessment proceedings were initiated for the same assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.S. SAINI
ORDER These are the appeals filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(Appeals)-1, Noida dated 24.02.2017 for the AY 2008-09, order dated 29.12.2017 for AY 2008-09.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the assessment was framed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act on 03.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs. 4,15,000/-. This order was passed in pursuance to notice issued on 13.03.2015 u/s 148 of the Act.
On appeal, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non compliance without any discussion on the merits of the grounds of appeal raised before him.
4. The AR of the assessee submitted that the notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A) was not received by the assessee. Therefore, compliance could not be made.
5. Both the parties before us agreed that the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for allowing one more opportunity to the assessee. In my considered opinion, it shall also be in the interest of justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after allowing both the parties reasonable opportunity of hearing. Thus, this appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as above for statistical purposes.
I now proceed to adjudicate the appeal in ITA No. 6149/Del/2018.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. The impugned order of assessment was passed u/s 144 read with section 147 by the AO in pursuance to notice dated 18.3.2015 issued u/s 148 of the Act.
I find that in the instant case already notice u/s 148 was issued by the very same AO on 13.03.2015 which culminated in the order of assessment on 3.3.2016. Thus, on 18.3.2015 an assessment proceeding was pending before the same AO. The DR agreed before us that on 13.3.2015 when 148 notice was issued in the instant case already an assessment proceeding initiated on the basis of 148 notice dated 18.3.2015 was pending before the AO. Therefore, notice dated 18.3.2015 was bad in law. Consequently, the impugned order of the assessment dated 3.3.2016 determining the total income at Rs. 39,15,000/- is bad in law and void ab initio. There cannot be two parallel assessment against the same assessee for the same assessment year. I, therefore, quash the impugned assessment order and allow the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal in is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal in ITA No. 6149/D/2018 is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04/04/2019
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
