DHANALAXMI VIVIDHODHESH SAHAKARI SANGH LTD,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GADAG

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1588/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 November 2018AY 2007-082 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without independently considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte assessment order due to non-cooperation. The AO made additions for unexplained investment in property, stamp duty, and registration charges.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper consideration of additional evidence. Whether the ex-parte assessment order was justified without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU

Hearing: 19/11/2018Pronounced: 27/11/2018

O R D E R

Per INTURI RAMA RAO, JM :

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Hubballi, dated 06/03/2018 for the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

Briefly the facts of the case are as under: The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2007-08. Against the said return of income, assessment order dated 22/12/2009 was passed u/s 144 assessing the total income at Rs.57,43,955/-. While doing so, AO made the following three additions: Unexplained investment in purchase of property.. Rs.52,50,000 Unexplained expenditure towards stamp duty on the above property ... Rs. 4,41,000 Unexplained expenditure towards registration charges on the above property ... Rs.52,955

Page 2 of 2 From the perusal of the assessment order it is clear that the assessee had not responded to notice of hearing issued by the AO despite several opportunities. Accordingly, AO had passed ex-parte assessment order after making the above items of additions.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) stating that the assessee could not co-operate with AO during the course of assessment proceedings following differences among Chairman and its directors and also filed certain additional evidence which was referred to the AO for his comments in accordance with provisions of rule 46A of the IT Rules. It appears that AO had not accepted the additional evidence. The ld.CIT(A), without independent application of his mind on additional evidence, merely dismissed the appeal. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it is a fit case to remit the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee as well as the AO.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →