SHEESH PAL SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7748/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 July 2018AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they raised a legal issue not adjudicated by the lower authorities. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on these grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by an addition of Rs. 12,57,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. The assessee raised additional grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated based on AIR information and the AO's belief, which the assessee argued was speculative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Sharma, Advocate &, Shri Sanjay Prashar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.07.2018Pronounced: 25.07.2018

Date of Hearing : 24.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2018 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 29.09.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.

2. The assessee, in the Memorandum of Appeal, is aggrieved against the addition of Rs.12,57,000/- sustained by the ld.CIT(A). The assessee has raised the following additional grounds:-

“1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law, on facts and in the surrounding circumstances of the case in failing to examine, on her own, the validity of re-assessment proceedings in as much as the mere fact that cash deposits have been made in the bank account does not by itself, indicate that these deposits constitute an income, which has escaped assessment as per the settled law.

2.

That since the Ld. A.O. was having no relevant tangible material worth the name, with him at the time of formation of belief except vague AIR information and non compliance of so called plenty opportunities the impugned so entertained by him being pre-supposed and speculative in nature, not only loses the legal sanctity but also eclipses the jurisdiction of Ld. A.O. to proceed u/s 147 of I.T. Act.”

3.

I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. Since the additional grounds relate to a legal issue, I, therefore, admit such ground. It is an admitted position that not only the assessee forgot to raise such grounds in Memorandum of Appeal, but, such grounds were not even taken before the authorities below. As such, there is no adjudication on such grounds by the authorities below. Under these circumstances, I am constrained to remit this matter to the file of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudicating such ground, challenging the initiation of re-assessment proceedings, as per law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The decision was pronounced in the open court on 25th July, 2018.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →