PUNIT JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4768/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 November 2017AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was a discrepancy regarding whether the assessee had submitted arguments before the CIT(A). To ensure justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed six appeals against the CIT(A)'s order concerning assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. The appeals involved identical issues regarding the reopening of assessment and additions made to purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was justified and whether the addition made on account of inflated purchases was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Adv
Hearing: 28.11.2017Pronounced: 29.11.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER to 4773/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2008-09 to 2013-14] Shri Punit Jain Vs. The I.T.O Prop. M/s Khas Vihidam Ward 46(2) 2740/1, Roshan Pura, New Delhi Nai Sarak, Delhi PAN : AAHPJ 1955 C [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 28.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2017 Assessee by : Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Adv Revenue by : Shri Atiq Ahmed Sr. DR ORDER This is a bunch of six appeals filed by the assessee, all arising out of the common order dated 31/05/2017 of the ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, for A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2013-14. Since the appeals pertain to same assessee involving identical issues and were heard together, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2 to 4773/DEL/2017 2. Ground No. 1 taken by the assessee in all the six appeals is identical. Ground No. 2 also is identical in all the appeals except for the quantum, which varies. Our decision in ITA No. 4768 for assessment year 2008-09 shall be application in all other five appeals.

3.

Grounds raised in is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience: “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in:

1.

confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] without there being any plausible reason to believe leading to escapement of income.

2.

confirming the addition made to the returned income in a sum of Rs. 1,55,608/- in holding that the assessee has not purchased anything and has merely inflated his purchases.”

4.

To start with, we will narrate the facts obtaining in A.Y. 2008-09. Legal ground raised before the ld. CIT(A) with regard to reopening of the assessment is as under:

3 to 4773/DEL/2017 “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order for assessment year 2008-09 passed on 18.03.2016 is illegal, bad in law and void ab initio for want of i. compliance to the provisions of section 147 of the Act ii. compliance to the ‘Principles of Natural Justice”

5.

Findings of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard is reproduced hereinbelow:

“The ld. counsel for the assessee has not submitted any arguments on this issue. Therefore, the same is dismissed.”

6.

It was argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee has submitted his arguments but they were not taken cognizance by the ld. CIT(A).

7.

On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

8.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Since the ld. counsel for the assessee has argued that he had submitted his arguments before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has stated otherwise, it will be in the interest of justice to set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) who will decide the case de novo after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the 4 to 4773/DEL/2017 assessee. Thus, ground No. 1 alongwith Ground No. 2 is set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground Nos 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

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

10.

Now we take up the rest of the appeals. The issues in the present appeals are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in . Therefore, our order rendered hereinabove shall be identically applicable to these appeals as well. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

11.

To sum up, in the result, all the six appeals of the assessee in to 4773/DEL/2017 are allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2017.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →