Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the Pr. CIT. The Pr. CIT had invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to revise the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) for AY 2015-16, alleging it was prejudicial to revenue. The assessee requested an adjournment on 16.03.2020, but the revision order was passed on 18.03.2020.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity to represent its case. The Pr. CIT, despite receiving a request for adjournment, passed the revision order without providing a proper hearing. This failure to meet the requirements of law led to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of being heard by the Pr. CIT before passing the revision order under Section 263.
Sections Cited
263, 143(3), Income tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI M.BALAGANESH
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.Pr. CIT. Delhi dated 18.03.2020 for the assessment year 2015-16.
The assessee has raised following ground of appeal:-
1. “Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making the order u/s 263 of the Act and holding that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of Income tax Act, 1961 dated 30.11.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16 is erroneous in as much as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no effective opportunity for representation was granted to the assessee by Ld. Pr. CIT. The assessee had moved an application for adjournment of the case on 16.03.2020. She drew our attention at page No.6 of the Paper Book. It is also further submitted that the notice for revising the assessment order was issued on 11.03.2020 and the impugned order has been passed on 18.03.2020.
On the other hand, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue supported the impugned order.
We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, there is no dispute that the impugned order was passed on 18.03.2020. The notice for revising the assessment order dated 30.11.2017 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was provided to the assessee on 11.03.2020. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 18.03.2020. We find that letter dated 16.03.2020 seeking adjournment, states that “the details are related to three years. We are compiling the details in this regard. You are requested to grant adjournment for a week. This application was made on 16.03.2020.” Therefore, we are of the considered view that under the facts of the present case, the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to represent its case by Ld. Pr. CIT. More particularly, when the assessee has made a request for adjournment to comply with the notice, Ld.Pr.CIT is empowered to revise the assessment order but such revision should be made after giving adequate opportunity of being heard and after making or causing such inquiry as it deems necessary. In this case, Ld. Pr. CIT has failed to meet the requirement of law. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of Ld. Pr. CIT for making the order afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground raised by the assessee is accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.