MR. ANIL BANSAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2783/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 February 2017AY 2007-082 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147/148 and the addition of outstanding professional charges and rent. The ITAT had previously remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order as the assessee remained unrepresented.

What were the issues?

Whether the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147/148 was justified and whether objections were properly disposed of. The merits of the additions were also questioned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-II’, NEW DELHI

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH

For Appellant: Shri C. P. Singh, Asstt. to AR
For Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr.DR

O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. : The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 09.02.2016 of the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi pertaining to 2007-08 assessment year on the following grounds :- “

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified by sustaining the assumption of jurisdiction for invoking the provisions of Sec.147 / 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Admittedly, the proceedings, are nothing but review of earlier decision, were based on the evidence/explanations already on record at the time of original proceedings which were dropped after a marathon arguments.

2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified by not quashing the order when there was no disposal - off objections in the manner it was objected by Appellant.

3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified even on merits that the outstanding professional charges Rs.93000/- and rent payable Rs.108623/- were added in the current year's income, although these are brought forward except Rs.39000/- rent payable for the year directly credited in the landlord a/c, without appreciating the evidence on record. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter or to raise any other ground at the time of hearing.”

2. At the time of hearing, an adjournment petition was moved on behalf of the assessee by his counsel. However, considering the impugned order and after hearing the ld. Sr.DR, it was considered appropriate to proceed with the present appeal ex- parte qua the assessee-appellant.

3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the assessee challenged the correctness of the addition of Rs.2,01,623/- made by the AO by an order u/s

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →