RAJEEV BHASIN,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3897/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s order, finding a procedural error as the CIT(A) decided the appeal without addressing the assessee's application for additional evidence under Rule 46A. The matter was restored to the first appellate authority to first decide the application for additional evidence and then adjudicate the appeals on their merits, including the penalty appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against assessment orders under sections 144/147 and a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) before the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred by stating that written submissions were considered, when in fact, an application for filing additional evidence under Rule 46A was filed but not disposed of before the appeal was decided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without disposing of the assessee's application for additional evidence filed under Rule 46A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CA &, Shri Manish Upneja, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.03.2024Pronounced: 30.05.2024

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These appeals are preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.12.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) arising out of the appeals before it against the orders passed u/ss 144/147 and 271(1)(c), respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), respectively, by the ITO, Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

2.

Heard and perused the record. The ld. AR has submitted that there is an error in the findings of CIT(A) wherein it is mentioned that during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submissions electronically which have been carefully considered for the disposal of the present appeal. He submitted that no submissions were, in fact, made and attention of the Bench was drawn to the screenshot copies made available at page 8 of the paper book that before the CIT(A) an application for filing additional evidence was filed and the same was considered to be the submissions and without disposing of the additional evidence application, the appeal was decided. On page No.1 of Part- C(A) of the paper book the copy of the additional evidence application under Rule 46A filed before the NFAC is also filed. The ld. DR could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

3.

In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to quash the impugned order of the NFAC and restore the issue on merits of grounds of challenge of assessment order to the file of first appellate authority to decide the additional evidence application of the assessee and proceed further in accordance with the law.

4.

Consequentially, the appeal in arising out of penalty sustained u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is also restored to the files of first appellate authority to be decided afresh after due opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only with consequences to follow as per directions above.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →