N.KARUPPUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO WARD 1, KARUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2400/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 July 2019AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the crucial legal grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to decide these legal grounds along with the merits of the matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) raised grounds regarding the validity of reopening of assessment, vagueness in notices under Section 148 and 143(2). However, the CIT(A) did not adjudicate these legal grounds and decided the appeal solely on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the legal grounds concerning the validity of reopening and the notices issued, and instead deciding the appeal only on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D ’ BENCH, CHENNAI

For Respondent: Ms. Subashri,JCIT,DR
Hearing: 01.07.2019Pronounced: 02.07.2019

आदेश /O R D E R

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-1,Tiruchirappalli, dated 20.07.2018.

2.

At the outset, the ld.AR submitted that assessee has raised specific grounds on validity of re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act, vagueness in the notices u/s.148 and u/s.143(2) of the Act before the ld.CIT(A). However, ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the said grounds and has only adjudicated the grounds on merits of the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. It was accordingly submitted that the matter may be set aside to the file of ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the said grounds.

3. The ld.DR is heard who has relied on the order of ld.CIT(A).

4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A), it is noted that the assessee has taken the following three grounds of appeal before the ld.CIT(A).

“2. Notice issued u/s.148 dated 17/10/2013 is vague as the ld.Assessing Officer has not made it clear whether it is in respect of my income or the income of some other assessee for whom I am assessable.

3.

The reasons supplied by the ld.Assessing Officer for issue of notice u/s.148 vide his letter dated 20.01.2014 is arbitrary and vague and does not establish that he had a valid reason for believing that income had escaped assessment.

4.

Notice issued u/s.143(2) dated 20.01.2014 issued in connection with return of income submitted on 09.01.2012 is barred by limitation and therefore bad in law.”

Further, on perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A), we find that he has not adjudicated the said grounds and has decided the appeal on merits.

Therefore, we agree with the contention raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Given that the adjudication of the legal grounds will have a bearing on the matter, we are setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to decide the legal grounds so raised by the assessee along with the merits of the matter.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02/07/2019 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� माथन) (�व�म �संह यादव) (George Mathan) (Vikram Singh Yadav) �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member चे�नई/Chennai, 7दनांक/Dated, the 02nd July, 2019.

K s Sundaram

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →