Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a reassessment order for AY 2011-12, where an addition of Rs. 39,66,000 was made for alleged unexplained investment. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, leading the assessee to challenge the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the dismissal itself before the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal noted that Section 251 of the Income Tax Act does not confer power upon the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to examine the issues afresh after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings, including the notice u/s 148, reasons u/s 148(2), and approval u/s 151. 2. Legality of the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. Addition for unexplained investment and charging of interest u/s 234B.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148(2), 151, 143(3), 251, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US
ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 17.03.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“1. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law upholding initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) by the Ld. Assessing Officer, which was not in accordance with the requirements of provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Act, in as much as that- i. The notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 issued by non-jurisdictional ITO, Ward-2(1), Meerut is ab-initio void; ii. The reasons u/s 148(2) of the Act were recorded based on patently incorrect facts and, hence, invalid; iii. There was no valid approval u/s 151 of the Act; and iv. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(4), Noida erred in making assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act order dated 30.11.2018, without assuming valid jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act as he has not recorded reasons u/s 148(2) and has not issued any notice u/s 148 of the Act.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 39,66,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property, without properly appreciating facts of the case.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order without giving reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice.
4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer charging interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
3. At the outset, in this case, it is noted that pursuant to Assessing Officer’s order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. We note that the section 251 of the Income Tax Act does not provide any power to the Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. Hence, in the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall examine the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th March, 2024.