DBS AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-1, PATNA, PATNA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided adequate time to furnish the information requested by the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for readjudication.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 142(1) to the assessee, demanding details within two days. The assessee was unable to provide all the requested information within this short timeframe. The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without considering the details provided later.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was given sufficient time to respond to the notice issued by the AO and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Shri A.K.Rastogi, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.
It was submitted by ld AR that the Assessing Officer had granted the assessee only two days’ time to provide the details. It was the submission that notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 3.2.2019 asking to furnish the details on or before 5.12.2019 at 12.46 PM. It was the submission that the details called for ran into 2 to 3 pages and admittedly, the assessee was unable to provide all the details. It was the submission that all the details were provided before the ld CIT(A), who did not consider the details and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was the prayer that the issue be restored to the file of the AO for readjudication.
In reply, ld CIT DR supported the orders of the ld CIT (A).
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the assessee has not been provided adequate time to provide the information sought for by the AO in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in this ppeals are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO shall give adequate opportunity to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to submit all the evidences to substantiate its claim before the AO.
P a g e 2 | 3
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026