Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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 31/10/2017 passed by CIT (A)- Ghaziabad for Assessment Year 2009-10.
The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1) That the impugned assessment order dated 28/03/2016 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of I.T. Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed/annulled on various factual and legal grounds including the following: a) There is no proper valid and legal service of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act on the Appellant. b) There is no proper valid and legal service of notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act on the Appellant. 2) That the impugned assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of I.T. Act deserves to be quashed/annulled as the provisions of section 147/148 I.T. Act are not applicable to the facts of Appellant's case inter alia because: a) The reasons as recorded are vague. b) The AO relied solely on the AIR information to record in the reasons that source of investment in purchase of immovable property by the Appellant remained unexplained. In other words, the AO had not applied his own mind independently for recording the reasons. c) There is no nexus between the reasons recorded and the alleged escapement of income. d) The reasons recorded indicate that the AO has acted on mere surmises and suspicion for making fishing and roving enquires. The requirement of law is “reason to believe” and not “reason to suspect". e) There is no failure on the part of the Appellant to disclose his correct and true income chargeable to tax for the year under consideration.
3) That without prejudice to ground No. 1 and 2 above, the impugned assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of I.T. Act deserves to be quashed/annulled as no proper and adequate opportunity of being heard had been granted to the Appellant.
4) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.9,88,083/- u/s 69 of I.T. Act on account of unexplained investment made in the purchase of property. At any rate, the addition as made is vey excessive.
5) That the order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in an ex-parte manner is wholly unjustified and illegal.
6) That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend/modify the grounds of appeal.”
3. The assessee derived income from running of school and Return was filed showing income of Rs.154850/-. Thereafter query letter dated 11-07-2012 was received relating to purchase of property against consideration of Rs. 13261500/-. Said query letter was handed over to Chartered Accountant (Authorized Representative) and it was told that only l/6th share was purchased by the assessee and said-property was purchased jointly with other 5-persons, and assessee only invested Rs 9,88,083/- in said deal including stamp papers value and registration expenses. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.9,88,083/-.
Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR submitted that all information and evidences were also given to said Authorized Representative to prove availability of sum of Rs.9,88,083/- so invested. The Ld. AR submitted that only on receipt of order, it has come to notice of assessee that said evidences etc. were not filed in Income Tax Department in time. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition of Rs.9,88,083/- and determination of Interest payable are disputed.
The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer has passed ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) has not at all considered the evidences furnished by the assessee before him. Therefore, 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.