AWADH NARAYAN ASTHANA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3747/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 April 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the ex-parte assessment and the dismissal *in limine* by the FAA on the ground of delay. It set aside the FAA's order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a *de novo* adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 147 for AY 2012-13, and the Assessing Officer completed an ex-parte assessment under Section 144, adding Rs. 33,87,040/-, as the assessee allegedly did not comply with notices. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the assessee's subsequent appeal, holding it was delayed, but without issuing a show cause notice. The assessee's counsel claimed the appeal was filed in time.

What were the issues?

Whether the First Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without a show cause notice and whether the assessee should be granted a proper opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Tiwari. CA
For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.04.2024

O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.:

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 26.10.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2012- 13.

2.

We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. The limited grievance of the assessee is against lack of opportunity of hearing given, both by the Assessing Officer and First Appellate Authority.

3.

Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. Based on certain information available on record, assessment in case of the assessee was reopened for the impugned assessment year, taking recourse to Section 147 of the Act. As observed by the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee did not comply with the notices issued u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, he proceeded to complete the assessment, ex parte, to the best of his judgment u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act. While doing so, he added an amount of Rs. 33,87,040/- to the income of the assessee. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, by the impugned order, assessee’s appeal was dismissed.

4.

Having considered rival submissions, we find that the assessment in case of the assessee was completed, ex parte, u/s 144 of the Act by making couple of additions aggregating to Rs. 33,87,040/-. While deciding assessee’s appeal against the assessment order, the First Appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. On going through the order of the First Appellate Authority it is observed that he had not given any show cause notice to the assessee to explain the delay, if any, in filing the appeal. Merely going by certain assumption and presumption, the First Appellate Authority has inferred delay in filing the appeal.

5.

Before us, learned counsel, appearing for the assessee, has furnished an affidavit stating that the appeal was filed in proper time. Considering the fact that assessment was completed, ex parte, and the appeal before the First Appellate Authority was dismissed in limine, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority and restore the issues to the AO for de novo adjudication, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 10.04.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →