What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's hospitalization. While the CIT(A) provided an opportunity, the assessee now possesses all necessary evidence. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The assessee was admitted to the hospital, and the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144. The CIT(A) confirmed this order, despite the assessee's claim of being hospitalized and having sufficient evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 144 was justified, and if the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present evidence due to hospitalization.

Vimla Sawhney, Meerut vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2018

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 12.2.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut relevant to assessment year 2013-14.

The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:-

That the AO has not justified in completing the assessment under section 144 of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee was admitted in hospital and CIT(A) also is in error in confirming the same.

2. That the addition of Rs. 23,07,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account is bad in law because in the bank account, there is sufficient and redeposit in the bank account. therefore, addition made by the AO is against the facts and law and CIT(A) also is in error confirm the addition of Rs. 17,32,703/- on account of peal credit in bank. 3. That the assessee has right to add, modify or delete any ground during the appeal proceedings.

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.

During the hearing, Ld. A.R. of the assessee, has stated that AO has passed the exparte non-speaking order u/s. 144 of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee as admitted in hospital and CIT(A) also is in error in confirming the same. He further submitted that both the lower authorities has not given proper opportunity for substantiating the claim of the assessee. He further stated that assessee is having the all the evidences to substantiate its claim, if the matter in dispute is remitted back to the file of the AO.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the Ld. CIT(A)’s order. I find that AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee was admitted in hospital. But Ld. CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunity to the assessee. But now the assessee is in possession of all the necessary evidences for substantiating its claim, if one more chance is given to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the AO. I further find that assessee has wasted the time of the Revenue authorities. But during the hearing, Ld. A.R. of the Assessee, Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel, CA undertakes to appear before the AO without wasting any further time, if the matter is remitted back to him for fresh adjudication. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the issue in dispute is remitted back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, after considering all the evidences to be filed by the Assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the AO on 02.01.2019 at 10.00 AM to substantiate its claim and file all the necessary evidences and did not take any unnecessary adjournment during the proceedings before him. It is made clear that no notice shall be sent to the parties, because this order has been pronounced in the Open Court. 7. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24-10-2018.

VIMLA SAWHNEY,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), MEERUT

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments