BIJENDRA SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3452/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 November 2018AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not receive notices for appeal fixation or the assessment order, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The reassessment was initiated based on AIR information regarding cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were passed without adhering to principles of natural justice and sufficient opportunity. Whether the reassessment initiation based on AIR information was lawful.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 250(6)

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, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 30.6.2016 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida relevant to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:-

1.

None of the notices for fixation of appeal was received by the appellant. Even the assessment order was not received and therefore a certified copy was obtained by the appellant for filing appeal with the Hon’ble Tribunal. In the given circumstances of these facts the decision of the Commissioner ex party and that too without determination of each of the grounds of appeal is contrary to the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the decision of exparte dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A) is unlawful and is liable to be set aside.

2. The reopening of the case u/s. 147/148 solely on the basis of AIR information from CIT(CIB), Kanpur, that cash of Rs. 16,11,000/- was deposited in saving bank of the appellant, is contrary to law and therefore, the reassessment initiation is unlawful and consequently the reassessment order framed on the basis of such unlawful initiation is also unlawful and is liable to be quashed.

Submission to the Hon’ble Tribunal on this ground Although the above ground was not specifically taken up in Form 35 filed with the CIT(A) but is covered under the gernal ground no.1 However, it is submitted that the ground could have been filed with CIT(A) as an additional ground but the order was decided exparte. It is further submitted that the ground is a legal ground and the appellant is not precluded from raising this legal issue at this stage of appeal in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co Limitd vs. CIT (1998) 223 ITR 383.

3. The addition of Rs. 14,44,859/- as unexplained cash deposit by the AO and dismissal of the same by CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law and therefore the addition is liable to be deleted.

4. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any of the grounds of appeal.

3.

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.

4.

During the hearing, Ld. A.R. of the 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 passed the exparte order and upheld the action of the AO, without giving sufficient opportunity to 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. 5. Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the request of the ld. counsel for the assessee. 6. 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 Ld. Counsel of the assessee that AO has completed the assessment vide exparte order dated 03.2.2016 u/s. 147/144 of the Income Tax Act and similarly, Ld. CIT(A) also passed the exparte order dated 30.6.2016 and upheld the action of the AO, without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the 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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →