RAJENDRA PRASAD,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 3(1), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5986/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 April 2019AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the evidence submitted by the assessee required thorough investigation by the AO. Therefore, the case was sent back to the AO to re-examine the evidence, provide a proper opportunity of hearing, and pass a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was heard. The assessee argued that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity to present their case and consider the evidence submitted. The AO had passed an ex-parte order, and the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking order.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in not properly considering the evidence submitted, leading to an ex-parte and non-speaking order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 249(4)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 28.6.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:- i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law. ii) That on fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal of the appellant by application of section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant in order to explain the matter before him. v) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO and Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,70,500/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has provided valid explanation of the amount deposited in the bank account.

That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

2.

The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) have decided the issues in dispute against the assessee without giving full opportunity to the assessee for substantiating his claim before them. He further submitted that assessee is in possession of the relevant evidences which have already been filed before the revenue authorities, but the same were not properly considered by them. It was further submitted that AO has passed the exparte order dated 21.12.2017 u/s. 144/147 of the Act and similarly, Ld. CIT(A) has also passed the non-speaking order on the issues in dispute. Therefore, he requested that the issues in dispute may be sent back to the AO to examine all the evidences on the issue in dispute because all these evidences are required thorough investigation at the level of the AO.

4.

Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection on the request of the Assessee’s counsel.

5.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records. After perusing the relevant records available with me alongwith the orders of the revenue authorities, I am of the considered view that the evidences filed by the assessee on the issue in dispute for substantiating the claim of the assessee are required thorough investigation at the level of the AO. Therefore, issues in dispute are sent back to the file of the AO with the directions to thoroughly examine the evidences filed by the Assessee and decide the issues in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. The Assessee is also directed not to take any unnecessary adjournment and produce all the documents to substantiate his claim before the AO.

6.

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 02-04-2019.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →