PIMAC ENGINEERS LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 30(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 374/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 July 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed that the jurisdictional issue regarding the section 148 notice needed fresh adjudication. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue after providing a fair opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the NFAC order for A.Y. 2011-12, challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148(2) of the Income-tax Act. The core grievance was that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate jurisdictional grounds related to the issuance of the section 148 notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the jurisdictional grounds related to the issuance of notice under section 148, thereby rendering the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148(2) invalid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148(2),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09.07.2024

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 15.01.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

Though the assessee has raised as many as 7 grounds of appeal, but the challenge to holding the proceedings commenced and completed u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] invalid and the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act were incorrect goes to the root of the matter, therefore, we decided to adjudicate the same first.

3.

Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules.

3. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated Ground Nos. 1 to 5 raised before him regarding jurisdictional ground with regard to the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee further requested the bench to issue orders for deciding the matter afresh.

4.

The ld. DR did not raise any serious objection.

5.

On such concession, we have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and considered the relevant documentary evidences brought on record in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. Judicial decisions relied upon duly considered.

6.

We are of the considered view that the issue of jurisdiction needs to be adjudicated afresh. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, without going into the merits of the case, we restore this issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to examine the same after affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

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

The order is pronounced in the open court on 26.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →