Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee was in jail during assessment proceedings, and section 148 notices were issued when section 143(2) was still available. The revenue's counsel argued that the assessee failed to provide evidence and represent before the CIT(A). PMLA proceedings were pending.
Held
The Tribunal noted that PMLA proceedings were pending and would impact the outcome of the appeals. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside and restored to the AO for re-adjudication after the finalization of PMLA proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment orders should be quashed due to the assessee's incarceration and procedural issues, and the impact of pending PMLA proceedings on the current appeals.
Sections Cited
148, 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
These are appeals ese are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate separate orders of the ld CIT(A), Ranchi in Appeal No. in Appeal No. 144/Ran/Oth/09-10, 353/Ran/Oth/201011, dated 10, 353/Ran/Oth/201011, dated 23.8.2017, Appeal No.154/Ran/Oth/2012 23.8.2017, Appeal No.154/Ran/Oth/2012-13, Appeal No.415/Ran/Oth/2011 13, Appeal No.415/Ran/Oth/2011-12 and Appeal No.155/Ran/Oth/2012 and Appeal No.155/Ran/Oth/2012-13 dated 21.8.2017for the assessment year or the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009 09, 2009-10 & 2010-11, respectively.
P a g e 1 | 3 to 280/RAN/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11
Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld Sr DR appeared for then revenue and ShriM.K.Chowdhary,ld AR appeared for the assessee.
It was submitted by ld AR that when the assessment proceedings were on, the assessee was in Jail. It was the further submission that for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s.148 of the Act when the time for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) was very much available. It was the submission that the assessment orders perse would have to be quashed.
In reply to a query raised by the Bench as to whether the assessee has represented and provided all the details before the AO, it was again reiterated that the assessee was in jail during the course of assessment proceedings. It was the submission that PML proceedings in the case of the assessee continuing as on today.
In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the assesse has not been able to dislodge the additions as made by the AO. It was the submission that the assessee has not represented before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the evidences required for assessment have also not been provided. It was fairly admitted by ld Sr DR that PMLA proceedings are pending in the assessee’s case.
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that PMLA proceedings in the case of the assessee are still pending and as it is noticed that the said proceedings would have bearing on the outcome of these appeals, in the interest of justice, the orders of the AO and ld CIT(A) are set aside and P a g e 2 | 3 to 280/RAN/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 issues in all these appeals are restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication denovo after the finalization of PMLA proceedings. The assessee shall intimate the AO at the time of closure/completion of the PMLA proceedings.
In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 10/06/2025.