AVDESH KUMAR PANDEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 220/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 December 2017AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they were not given sufficient opportunity by the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the quantum appeal was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concerned additions to income and a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 144 without adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment was validly made without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and consequently, whether the penalty was sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 219/Del/2016
ITA No. 220/Del/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

These two Appeals filed by assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) i.e. for the quantum addition as well as penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 relating to same assessment year i.e. AY 2011-12. Since the issues involved in these appeals are inter-connected, hence, these appeals are being consolidated by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with Quantum Appeal No. 219/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12).

2.

The ground raised in Quantum Appeal being (AY 2011-12) read as under:-

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the following actions of the AO:

1.

in framing assessment u/s. 144 of the Act without providing due and adequate opportunity of hearing and doing so at an income of Rs. 55,89,197/- against the returned income at Rs. 10,48,740/- without any jurisdiction; 2. making following additions to the returned income by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act: a) Rs. 20,75,921/- on account of deposits in State Bank of India. b) Rs. 24,11,475/- on account of deposits in ICICI Bank; c) Rs. 52,963/- on account of amount received from SGI Group.

Both the above action being arbitrary, erroneous, unjustified, untenable and unlawful must be quashed with direction for appropriate relief.”

3.

The grounds raised in Penalty Appeal being (AY 2011-12) read as under:-

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding the assessee guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The action being arbitrary, erroneous, unjustified, untenable and unlawful must be quashed with direction for appropriate relief.

4.

The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

5.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that AO has completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) on 15.3.2013. He further stated that assessee has not received any notice of hearing and therefore, sufficient opportunity has not been given by the AO to substantiate the claim of the assessee. He further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has also decided the appeal of the assessee without properly considering the written submissions filed before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as additional evidence filed before him and additional ground. Therefore, he requested to set aside order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore back the matter to file of the AO for fresh consideration in the quantum appeal as well as in penalty appeal, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

On the contrary, Ld. DR has opposed the request of the ld. Counsel of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the AO has completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 15.3.2013. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel of the assessee that assessee has not received any notice of hearing and sufficient opportunity has not been given by the AO and Ld. CIT(A) has not properly considered the written submissions filed before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as additional evidence filed before him and additional ground. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored back the issue in dispute raised in the quantum appeal to the file of AO for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment.

7.1 As regards the Penalty appeal is concerned, since we have already set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in quantum appeal, as aforesaid and restored back the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for adjudication, therefore, at this juncture, the penalty in dispute does not stand in the eyes of law, hence, the same is deleted as such.

8.

In the result, the quantum appeal being (AY 2011- 12) stands allowed for statistical purposes and penalty Appeal being (AY 2011-12) stands allowed.

Order pronounced on 19-12-2017.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →