SUSHIL KUMAR,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3786/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 November 2017AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte order by the CIT(A), restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 148, leading to an addition of Rs. 6,88,330. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order upholding this addition due to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and not adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merit, and if the reopening of assessment was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA

For Respondent: Ms. Yamini, Sr.DR

PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2017 of CIT(A)- 20, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :-

1.

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice u/s 148 issued in the case is bad-in-law, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation and accordingly the said notice alongwith assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and the CIT(A) has erred in not holding so.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the addition of Rs.6,88,330/- made by the A.O. is beyond the scope of provision of section 147/148 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,88,330/- made by the assessing officer.

4. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order.

5. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating various grounds of appeal on merit. The appellant craves leave to add one or more ground of appeal or to alter / modify the existing ground before or at the time of hearing of appeal. The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice.

Therefore, the appeal is being decided on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR.

4.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 24.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.12,40,290/-.

The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 06.12.2010 determining the total income of Rs.12,40,290/- after making certain disallowances. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 and completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.19,28,620/- by making addition of Rs.6,88,330/-. Since there was non-compliance before the ld. CIT(A), she passed an ex-parte order upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record.

Since the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order, therefore, considering the totality of facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) and substantiate his case, failing which the ld. CIT(A) will pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on this 20th day of November, 2017.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →