M/S. S.K. INDUSTRIES,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide adequate opportunity for the assessee to present evidence, as a notice under Section 154 was issued and an order passed on the same day. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer (AO) made disallowances for loss on sale of a car and delayed deposit of employee contributions to a fund via an order under Section 154.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing an order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC-II : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
(Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mukesh Gupta, CA Respondent by: Shri B. Ramanjaneyulu, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.12.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 21.12.2016 ORDER
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 03.04.2014 in relation to Assessment Year 2006-07.
This is a recalled matter inasmuch as the earlier ex parte order passed by the Tribunal was subsequently recalled on 14.10.2006.
I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR argued that the AO, vide his order u/s 154, which became the subject matter of the impugned order, made disallowance of loss in sale of car amounting to Rs.6,00,347/- and of employees contributed fund deposited after the due date amounting to Rs.3,61,911/-. It was contended that the AO did not provide adequate opportunity inasmuch as notice u/s 154 was issued on 20.3.2013 fixing the case for hearing on 25.3.2013 and on the same date itself, the order was passed. The ld. AR contended that the assessee could not adduce necessary evidence in support of its contention. The contention of the ld. AR is borne out from the dates given in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act. Without going into the merits of the disallowances made, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct the AO to pass order u/s 154 of the Act, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 21st December, 2016.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026