PARISH AGARWAL HUF,. vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1) MEERUT, .
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an effective, fair, and adequate opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the entire matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to afford a meaningful and effective opportunity to the assessee, consider all material/evidence, and decide the appeal afresh.
What were the facts?
Appellant Parish Agarwal HUF filed a return for AY 2013-14 declaring income of Rs. 67,066. The case was reopened U/s 148, and an assessment U/s 144 r/w 147 resulted in a total assessed income of Rs. 28,70,120. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the assessment due to the appellant's failure to submit supporting documents and evidences.
What were the issues?
1. Non-allowance of credit for taxes paid (Rs. 8,93,921) despite reflection in ITR acknowledgement and Form 26AS. 2. Creation of disputed tax demand (Rs. 9,18,673) without any addition or disallowance in assessment. 3. Non-allowance of deduction U/s 80C for LIC Premium (Rs. 1,00,000). 4. Denial of reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard by lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK
By this appeal, Assessee has challenged the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘NFAC’) dated 29.12.2023 by which Learned CIT(A) while deciding the ITA No.- 596/Del/2024 Parish Agarwal appeal filed by him, upheld the action of Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’).
Facts of this case may be summarized as that the Appellant HUF filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 67,066/- on 17.01.2013 for AY 2013-14. The case was reopened and notice U/s 148 was issued on 27.03.2021 and after completion of the assessment U/s 144 r/w 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), assessing total income at Rs. 28,70,120/-. Thereafter, assessee, filed appeal before the Leaned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as (Ld. CIT(A)’], and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and upheld assessment as above by stating that appellant has failed to submit any documents / proofs/ evidences in support of his claim and arguments. Being aggrieved, present appeal before us.
Assessee / Appellant submitted substantive grounds of appeal before us as follows:
“1. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of Ld. AO and not allowing the credit of taxes paid to the tune of Rs. 8,93,921/-, despite the fact that taxes paid was reflected in ITR acknowledgement and Form 26AS, as well.
ITA No.- 596/Del/2024 Parish Agarwal 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of Ld. AO wherein the disputed tax demand of Rs. 9,18,673/- was created despite the fact that Return filed u/s 148 of the Act was accepted and no addition or disallowance was made in the assessment order passed u/s 147.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of Ld. AO and not allowing the deduction u/s 80C of the Act of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the LIC Premium paid, which assessee could not be claim while filing the return of income.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as facts in not providing the reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard while disposing the appeal of the assessee.
5. The above grounds of appeals are independent of, and without prejudice to each other. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of these grounds.
Heard rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record for disposal of this appeal.
Ld. AR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) not provided reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard and dismissed appeal in non- submission of supporting evidence.
Per contra, Learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. DR’), relied upon the order passed by lower authorities by stating that there is no substance in present appeal and ample opportunities been afforded to assessee / appellant.
ITA No.- 596/Del/2024 Parish Agarwal 7. It has been submitted on behalf of assessee / appellant that in the response to notice dated 26.11.2021 and 21.02.2022 , he submitted reply alongwith supportive documents /evidence but Ld. AO did not considered it while passing order dated 30.03.2022.
Even Ld. CIT(A) did not take notice of such a important fact that Ld. AO specifically admitted in his order dated 30.03.2022, that in response of the notice served, assessee submitted documents online on 24.02.2022 and disposed of appeal pending with him by stating simply that despite several opportunities, appellant / assessee failed to submit documents / proofs/ evidences in support of his claim and arguments.
Bare perusal of orders passed by lower authorities and also materials placed before us, it explicitly reveals that both the lower authorities did not provide effective, fair and adequate opportunity to assessee while disposing the matter pending before them. The assessee / appellant was deprived of proper opportunity of being heard in accordance with law.
In our humble opinion, object of law is to ensure substantive justice and Rule of Law are just to handmaid to administration of ITA No.- 596/Del/2024 Parish Agarwal justice. Discussion and observations as hereinbefore enables us to reach this conclusion that the object of justice will fulfilled if one more opportunity may provide to assessee / appellant in order to resolve the dispute thoroughly.
Upon hearing both the parties, and overall circumstances, without discussing on merits of the case, matter is remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to afford meaningful and effective opportunity in accordance with law to the assessee/ appellant and decide afresh. The assessee / appellant shall co-operate in the proceeding for expeditious disposal before Ld. CIT(A) with providing all material / document / evidence in support of his claim and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Consequently, this appeal is allowed as indicated above for statistical purpose
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.05.2024
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
