RIZWAN,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4477/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 November 2018AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessment was completed ex-parte without proper consideration of the material on record. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte order under Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, and the CIT(A) upheld this order. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard and present their submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Goel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19/11/2018Pronounced: 20/11/2018

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 23.04.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut relevant to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds: -

1. “That the assessee is small trader therefore, entire sale cannot be treated as profit of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee requests your honour to kindly direct AO to take profit as per section 44AD of the I.T. Act on the basis of technical. That the status was mentioned in the bank account relates to small amount of transactions of shares and this cannot be basis to assessed entire cash deposit in the bank account.

2. That the addition was made of Rs. 12,81,000/- without considering the credit and debit entries, hence, entire amount of cash was assessed in the income of the assessee. The AO also not considered the peak credit of bank account, therefore, addition made by AO is bad in law. 2 A.Y. 2010-11 Rizwan, Meerut

3. That the AO as well as CIT(A) has passed the order without providing the proper and reasonable opportunity being heard to the assessee. Hence, assessment made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is bad in law.

4. That the assessee has right to add, modify or delete any ground during the appeal proceedings.”

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 brevity.

3.

During the hearing, assessee, has stated that AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in Short “Act”) and similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has also upheld the action of the AO, without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee and without properly considered the submissions of the assessee. He requested that the matter may be set aside to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 4. Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the request of the assessee. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I have also gone through the order passed by the revenue authorities as well as the contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal

. I find force in the arguments of the assessee that AO has completed the assessment vide exparte order dated 09.11.2017 u/s. 147/144 of the Income Tax Act and similarly, Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the action of the AO, without considering the material on record. Therefore, in the 3. A.Y. 2010-11 Rizwan, Meerut interest of justice, the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary documents/evidences, if any, to substantiate his case and fully cooperate with the AO in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment.

6.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →