SHRI. T. ASWANTHNARAYANA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 759/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2019AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to his file for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13. The CIT(A) did not admit additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The assessment was completed under Section 144 of the IT Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence and whether the reassessment proceedings were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 143(2),Section 54F,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Tshering Ongda, JCIT (DR)
Hearing: 15.05.2019Pronounced: 31.05.2019

BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri T. Aswathnarayana, Uttari Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, The ITO, Kagglipura Post, Kanakapura Main Ward – 3 [2] vs. Road, [4], Bangalore – 560 082. Bangalore. PAN: AURPA7699E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Tshering Ongda, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2019 O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-3, Bangalore dated 11.02.2019 for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The grounds raised

by the assessee are as under. “1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The order of re-assessment is bad in law and void-ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction especially, the mandatory requirements to assume jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act did not exist and have not been complied with and consequently, the order of re-assessment requires to be cancelled.

3. The learned AO is not justified in completing the assessment u/s.144 of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in refusing to provide the reasons as recorded for reopening the appellant's case u/s. 147 of the Act and as such not followed the principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts reported in 259 ITR 19 and consequently, the orders of the Authorities below need to be set aside and the order of re-assessment cancelled under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

5. Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below ought to have allowed the deductions u/s. 54F of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.

6. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s 234B of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled.

7. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add, alter, amend,

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →