SHRI GOPI KISHAN PANDEY,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), KANPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to explain their case before the authorities below. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147, and the Assessing Officer made an addition invoking Section 50C. The assessee claims they were out of station and did not receive a sufficient opportunity to be heard before the assessment was completed under Section 144.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the assessment proceedings. Whether the addition made under Section 50C was justified without proper examination of the assessee's case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), dated 01/03/2016 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.
In this appeal the assessee has challenged the addition which the Assessing Officer has made by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The assessee, besides taking ground on merits, has also taken a ground vide ground No. 4 that learned CIT(A) has not given reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and Assessing Officer, after invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act, has made the addition. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that notice u/s 148 was issued on 28/03/2013 and in response, the advocate of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer on 03/05/2013 and after that on 21/03/2014, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and on 29/03/2014 itself the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. It was submitted that after giving notice for reopening of the case, the Assessing Officer did not take any action until 21/03/2014 and the case was attended by advocate of the assessee on 24/03/2014 and case was adjourned to 25/03/2014. It was submitted that assessee was out of station after that date and Assessing Officer passed the order on 29/03/2014 without giving the assessee sufficient opportunity of being heard. In this respect our attention was invited to paper book pages 1 to 3 where copy of order sheet of Assessing Officer and evidence of assessee being out of station in the last days of March, 2014, was placed. It was submitted that the appeal was filed before learned CIT(A) and the valuation report was filed before him but learned CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that there is no provision in the Act requiring CIT(A) to make a reference to D.V.O. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the case has not been decided on merits either by the Assessing Officer or by learned CIT(A). It was prayed that therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee so that he can explain his case to the Assessing Officer.
Learned D. R., on the other hand, though supported the orders of the authorities below but fairly agreed that the merits of the case have not been examined by either of the parties, therefore, the case may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that it is a fact that on 28/03/2013, the notice u/s 148 was issued and then on 21/03/2014, notice u/s 143(2) was issued.
Between the period 22/03/2014 to 27/03/2014 the assessee was out of station and therefore, the case could not be explained to the Assessing Officer. On 29/03/2014 itself the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Before learned CIT(A), the assessee filed the valuation report but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee did not file the valuation report before Assessing Officer nor did he request the Assessing Officer to obtain report from D.V.O. The learned CIT(A) further held that there is no provision in the Act available to the CIT(A) to make a reference to the D.V.O. and hence he dismissed the appeal. We find that the assessee did not get proper opportunity to explain his case before the authorities below and since the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 144 therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit back the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 28/07/2022)
Sd/. Sd/. ( T. S. KAPOOR ) ( A. D. JAIN ) Accountant Member Vice President
More judgments on Section 50C
- M N S Barium Salts, Kadapa vs ITO, Ward-1, KadapaITA 2412/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sawalchand Chunilal Bafna HUF, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7492/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Rohini Ramhari Bhadale, Pune vs Assessing Officer Ward 2(2) Pune, PuneITA 2767/PUN/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 44(2), KolkataITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026