RAMAN TEXTILE PVT. LTD.,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 1, PANIPAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was ex-parte and the CIT(A) did not give the assessee an opportunity to be heard or consider the evidence. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had the onus to prove the assessee's beneficiary status and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a Nil income return, and the case was reopened. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs 20,40,000 based on third-party information without confronting the assessee with the evidence. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made were based on assumptions and third-party information without proper evidence and opportunity to the assessee. Whether the Assessing Officer discharged his onus of proof.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D+SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N. K. SAINI & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 01/01/2018 passed by CIT (A)-Karnal for Assessment Year 2006-07.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:- “1. That the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income tax Act is bad in law and wrong on facts and as per the circumstances of the case.
2. The additions made are based on assumptions and not on facts and without any evidence.
3. That both the A.O and CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating the facts of the case and made the additions rely on the statement of 3rd party.
4. That the Ld. A.O erred in not discharging his onus by providing the appellant the information on the basis of which the additions was made.”
The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y 2006-07 on 30.03.2007 declaring Nil Income. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment u/s 144/147 was completed on 31.03.2014 making an addition of Rs 20,40,000/- relying on the information received from third party during the course of search conducted on him without confronting the evidence in possession of the Assessing Officer.
Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
At the time of hearing no one has appeared for the assessee Company. Therefore, we are taking of the submissions of the assessee before the CIT (A) as submissions before us. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 144 which is an ex-parte order. The CIT(A) also did not consider the evidence produced by the assessee and has not given any opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A) simply observed that the assessee has not produced any evidence even during the appeal stage. Whereas the assessee intimated the Assessing Officer that the assessee is not having any information about the entry in question and the onus is upon the department to prove that the assessee was the beneficiary of the transaction. However the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 without considering the request of the assessee and the CIT(A) simply dismissed the case without appreciating the facts of the case. In the interest of justice it will be appropriate to remand back this issue contested by the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer should give the opportunity of hearing to the assessee by following principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
