PRITI,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- II(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7010/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 September 2018AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not admitting the evidences filed by the assessee after the matter was restored. The issue was restored back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision considering all evidences.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was restored to the CIT(A) by the Tribunal for a fresh decision with specific directions. The CIT(A) again dismissed the appeal, refusing to consider additional evidence filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in not admitting additional evidence filed by the assessee after the matter was remanded by the Tribunal. The proper procedure to be followed by the CIT(A) when a matter is restored to its file.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.09.2018

Date of Hearing : 26.09.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2018. ORDER PER: N. K. BILLAIYA, AM

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-1, Gurgaon dated 08.09.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.22 lacs made by the Assessing Officer. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that in the first round of litigation the matter travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order 10.11.2016 in restored the matter to the files of the CIT(A) with the following directions as under :-

“6. Keeping in view of above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that sufficient opportunity has not been given by the Ld. First Appellate Authority to the assessee for substantiating its claim before the Ld. CIT(A) which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and against the principles of natural justice. I also note that on merit also Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on the issue in dispute, hence, I am of the view that in this case the issues in dispute needs to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, as per law. Accordingly, the issues in dispute are set aside and restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issues in dispute afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, as requested by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, the Assessee is directed through his counsel to be present before the Ld. CIT(A) on 15.12.2016 at 10.00 AM and fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A), did not take any unnecessary adjournment and file all the necessary papers before him to substantiate his case. It is made clear that no notice shall be issued to the Assessee, because this order has been pronounced.”

3.

Pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal the CIT (A) considered the appeal afresh. However, the CIT(A) did not consider the evidences filed by the assessee on the ground that they were additional evidences.

4.

In my considered view once the matter has been considered by the Tribunal and restored to the files of the CIT(A) there was no question of not admitting the evidences furnished by the assessee. I am of the opinion that by not considering the evidences the CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. In the interest of justice and fair play now I restore the issue to the files of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider all the evidences furnished by the assessee and decide the issue afresh as per law and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.09.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →