COMPOSITE ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4541/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 November 2018AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's actions regarding initiation of proceedings, disallowance of loss, and an addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

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 K. Sampath, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20/11/2018Pronounced: 20/11/2018

Date of Hearing 20/11/2018 Date of Pronouncement 20/11/2018 ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 28.03.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds: - “

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without providing reasonable or adequate opportunity of hearing and further erred in confirming the following actions of the Assessing Officer: - i. Initiating proceedings u/s 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without there being any valid reasons for forming belief that income has escaped assessment; ii. Disallowing a loss of Rs. 1,69,693/-; iii. Making an addition of Rs. 3,399/-. All the above actions being most arbitrary, erroneous, unlawful and unjust must be quashed with directions for relief.”

2. A.Y. 2009-10 Composite Estate Pvt. Ltd.

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.

Ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. K. Sampath, Advocate submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without providing reasonable or adequate opportunity of hearing and further erred in confirming the actions of the AO.

In view of the above, he requested to set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below.

5.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I have also gone through the exparte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and found that reasonable or adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), which in my opinion, is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is an erroneous approach. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the files of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to produce all the evidences / documents, if any, 3 A.Y. 2009-10 Composite Estate Pvt. Ltd. before him to substantiate its case 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 →