KULDIP SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5682/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 January 2017AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not be properly served with notices by the CIT(A). Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 6,42,000 to the assessee's income based on information that this amount belonged to the assessee and was recovered from his driver. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly afforded an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, FCA
For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR

O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 09.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi, u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) relating to assessment year 2006-07.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer received information from Director of Enforcement through O/o DGIT (Inv.), New Delhi that two persons namely, Shri Bhupender Singh, S/o Shri Amar Singh and Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Anand, S/o Shri Jasbir Singh were apprehended on 01.03.2006 at Bholath, Dist. Kaputhala, Punjab by Punjab Police under suspicious circumstances and Indian currency totaling to Rs.6,42,000/- was recovered and seized from them. The money was handed over to E.D.. Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Anand, inter-alia, stated before E.D. that he was working as a Driver with Shri Kuldip Singh and the seized amount belonged to Shri Kuldip Singh, which was to be delivered to some person in Bholath under instructions from his employer Shri Kuldip Singh.

The Assessing Officer after discussion made an addition of Rs.6,42,000/- in the hands of Shri Kuldip Singh. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex-parte.

3.

Ld. counsel submitted that no proper opportunity was afforded to the assessee by ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the matter may be restored back to ld. CIT(A).

4.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has given the details of notices sent to assessee as under :-

S.No. Date of Notice Date of Compliance Remarks 1. 04.08.2014 19.08.2014 None attended 2. 01.09.2014 11.09.2014 None attended 3. 22.12.2014 19.01.2015 Notice returned unserved with postal remarks “makan ban raha hai” 4. 30.01.2015 19.02.2015 Notice returned unserved with postal remarks “makan ban raha hai” However, notice dated 20.02.2015 fixing the date of hearing on 09.03.2015 was sent to the A.O. for ensuring the service. The A.O.’s report in this respect is reproduced as under :- “Sub: Appeal in the case of Sh. Kuleep Singh, Pan AAYUPS3204N, Appeal No.269/13-14, New Appeal No.1825/14-15 for A.Y. 2006-07 – Service of Notice – reg.

In reference to above subject it is submitted that the notice u/s 250 dated 20/02/2015 could not be served upon the Assessee as he has left the premises and gone to Canada permanently. Notice server has given his report marked back of the notice. I am returning the original notice for taking appropriate action at your end.”

5.

From the above sequence of events, it is evident that assessee could not be served with the notice and under such circumstances, in order to impart substantial to assessee, it would be interest of justice to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to afford one more opportunity to assessee. I direct accordingly. The assessee is directed to avail this opportunity by fully co-operating with the Department in disposal of appeal.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of January, 2017.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →