ILIYAS,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6512/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the ex-parte, non-speaking order of the CIT(A) unsustainable. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing adequate opportunities.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) which upheld the AO's additions. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunities, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking, ex-parte order violating principles of natural justice. Whether the AO erred in assuming jurisdiction and making additions without proper evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 44AF,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 31.7.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad relating to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:- 1. That the AO has erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147/148.

2. That the ITO has erred in not applying provisions of section 44AF of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. That the ITO has erred in making addition on presumption and assumption basis without any corroborative evidence.

4. That the AO/CIT(A) has erred in not serving the notice to the appellant.

5. That the AO has erred in passing non-speaking biased and vague orders giving no breakup of demand.

6. That the AO has erred in making addition without considering the ITR filed by the assessee as the same was filed with PAN ABEPI5668K and in same Ward 1(3), Ghaziabad.

7. That the AO has erred in invoking provisions of section 69.

2.

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.

Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order against the principles of natural justice by way of exparte order in not providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee and not decided the appeal on merits. Hence, he requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh on merits and pass a speaking order thereon. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. It was the contention of the assessee’s counsel that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte non-speaking order and dismissed the appeal by not providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee, which is against the principle of natural justice. I further find that Ld. CIT(A), has only upheld the order of the AO and passed the exparte order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues in dispute afresh, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties and pass a speaking order. However, the Assessee through his Counsel is directed to cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) in the proceedings and appear before him on 25.02.2019 at 10.00 AM and produce all the documents before him to substantiate its claim and not to take any unnecessary adjournment. Since I have fixed the date of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A), as aforesaid, hence, there is no need to issue the separate notice for hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →