BAL KISHAN CHAUHAN,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), FARIDABAD

ITA 771/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 January 2024AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. A key ground raised was that the reasons recorded for reopening under section 148(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were never supplied to the assessee. The assessee had made a written request for these reasons to the AO. The assessee did not appear for the hearing despite notice.

Held

The Tribunal found that the observation of the CIT(A), that the AO confronting the assessee with material meant the non-supply of reasons would not invalidate proceedings, was not legally sustainable. Relying on the Apex Court decision in GKN Driveshafts Ltd., the Tribunal held that the assessee should have been provided with a copy of the reasons.

Key Issues

Whether non-supply of reasons recorded for reopening under Section 148(2) to the assessee invalidates the assessment proceedings, even if the assessee was confronted with the material basis for such reasons?

Sections Cited

148(2), 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · SC
1,343 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Hearing: 08.01.2024

(Assessment Year: 2010-11) Bal Kishan Chauhan, vs. ITO, Ward 1 (2), Plot No.9, Kheri Road, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 002 (Haryana). (PAN : AFAPC1844F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.01.2024 Date of Order : 11.01.2024

ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Faridabad dated 27.11.2019 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

Although assessee has raised various grounds I take up first ground which mentions that the reasons recorded under section 148 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') were never supplied to the assessee even when assessee has made request in writing to the AO, Ward No.1(2), Faridabad.

I have carefully considered the grounds raised and heard the ld. DR for the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice.

I note that assessee has raised the plea that reasons recorded for reopening has not been supplied to the assessee. This ground was also raised before the ld. CIT (A) who held that the AO has confronted during the assessment proceedings with entire information/material which was the basis for recording reasons u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, if the copy of such reasons has not been provided to the assessee during assessment proceedings, the same would not invalidate the entire proceedings.

4.1 I find that the above observation of the ld. CIT (A) is not legally sustainable in the light of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of GKN Driveshafts Ltd. 259 ITR 19. Hence, in the interest of justice, I remit the issue to the file of AO. AO is directed to provide a copy of reasons recorded to the assessee and thereafter decide as per law. Needless to add, assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of being heard.