VIKUNJ REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR, CIT-7, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1023/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 February 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 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

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar Mangla, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Hearing: 23.01.2024Pronounced: 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-

21/1032005199 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard and perused the record. At outset, in light of reasons cited, we condone delay in filing of appeal.

3.

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.”

4.

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.

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.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes .

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →