VIKUNJ REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR, CIT-7, DELHI
Facts
The assessee appealed against a PCIT order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which was passed due to the assessee's alleged failure to respond to a notice and the Assessing Officer's lack of inquiry into a TDS claim, making the original assessment order prejudicial to revenue. The assessee contended before the Tribunal that no notice was properly served by the PCIT.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noted the lack of particulars regarding the mode of service for the PCIT's notice, and held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue was restored to the PCIT for a fresh decision after ensuring proper service of notice to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was valid when the assessee claimed no proper notice was served, thereby denying an opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1023/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vikunj Real Estate Pvt. Vs. Principal CIT, Ltd., B-1, Bareja Sadan, New Delhi Badarpur, Delhi-1100 44 PAN : AACCV2351A (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Shyam Sundar Mangla, CA Department by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Date of hearing 23.01.2024 Date of pronouncement 29.02.2024
ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA: JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the
order dated 31.03.2021 of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Delhi-1100 07 (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or
in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020-
2 ITA No.1023/Del/2021 21/1032005199 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income-Tax
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’).
Heard and perused the record. At outset, in light of reasons
cited, we condone delay in filing of appeal.
At the time of hearing, it comes up that learned PCIT
observes in his impugned order under Section 263 of the Act that
assessee/appellant had failed to respond to his notice under Section
263 of the Act and accordingly had passed the impugned order as
follows:
“10. In these facts and circumstances, I hold that the assessment order in this case is passed by Assessing Officer without making inquiries or verification which should have been made, and the order is passed allowing a relief without inquiring into the claim made in the Income Tax Return, i.e. claim of TDS without verifying whether the Order is erroneous. Had the inquiries been conducted, it would have made a legally sustainable tax implication in this case on account of the income being offered for tax against the TDS claimed, and therefore the order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as well.”
Here, before the Tribunal, the assessee has submitted that
there was no notice to the assessee. We find that in impugned order,
there are no particulars of mode of service. Only one notice seems to
have been issued. How it was served is not coming up.
3 ITA No.1023/Del/2021 5. In the light of submissions as made, we are of the considered
view that assessee deserves an opportunity to contest on merits. The
appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the issue is restored
before the learned PCIT to decide afresh after giving notice on the
postal address and through ITBA.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes .
Order pronounced in the open court on 29 /02/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) ( ANUBHAV SHARMA) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th February, 2024. Mohan Lal
