SARITA YADAV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 44(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9707/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2010-11Bench: him, therefore, proceeded to make the assessment u/s 144 r. w. section 147 of the Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). Further, he agreed that several opportunities were given by the Ld. CIT(A) as well and assessee could not represent his case due to non-receipt of the notices, however, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without deciding Sarita Yadav vs. ITO the issue on merits. On merits, he submitted that the assessee is not th4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case on merits. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) despite several notices, leading to ex-parte assessments and dismissal of the appeal. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and argued that the addition was based on incorrect assumptions about property ownership.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the addition made by the AO was justified, considering the assessee's claim of co-ownership and non-receipt of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Singh, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Arjun Garg, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09/05/2024Pronounced: 17/05/2024

Assessee by Shri Sandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by Shri Arjun Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 17/05/2024 ORDER

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi [“Ld.

CIT(A)”, for short], dated 21/10/2019 for Asst. Year 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in the law and on facts in making assessment u/s 147/144 at Rs.2.72,34,800/- as against no return of income filed by the appellant.

2. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law in reopening assessment u/s 147 as the notice u/s 148 was not served in time. The reopening of assessment was bad in law.

3.

That on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law in reopening assessment u/s 147 on the basis of material, which did not relate to the appellant. The re- opening of assessment was not valid. 4. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law in making addition of Rs, 2,70,74,800/- as peak cash credit in a current account as difference of cash deposited and cash withdrawn. The AO ought to have considered the fact that there was cash deposited and cheques issued in favor of Orient Craft Ltd on behalf of Purchasers of Plots and the cash deposited in the bank account of Sarita Yadav belongs to the parties in whose favor sale deeds have been executed. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter the grounds of appeal.

3. At the outset, the Ld. AR briefly submitted the facts in this case and agreed that Assessing Officer sent several notices, but assessee could not make submission before him, therefore, proceeded to make the assessment u/s 144 r. w. section 147 of the Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). Further, he agreed that several opportunities were given by the Ld. CIT(A) as well and assessee could not represent his case due to non-receipt of the notices, however, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without deciding the issue on merits. On merits, he submitted that the assessee is not the complete owner of the property sold by him. He is one of the co-owner in the property. He prayed that this issue may be remitted back to file of Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

4. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that assessee has not utilized the opportunity provided by Ld. Ld. CIT(A). However, he agreed that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte order.

5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. On a perusal of the assessment order and Ld. CIT(A) order, we find that even though the Ld. CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. We observed that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee based on the information available on record.

6. Considering the totality of facts and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that this matter should go back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for proper verification as per law. Assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjournments. Needless to say that the Ld. CIT(A) shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) accordingly.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th May, 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 →