SUNIL KUMAR JAIN (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5294/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 October 2016AY 2002-033 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to communicate the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee. Non-communication of these reasons, despite a request, renders the reopening invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2002-03. The assessee did not appear before the tribunal, and the appeal was decided ex parte on merits after hearing the Revenue's representative.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order is invalid due to the non-communication of reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain (HUF) vs. ITO, Ward 25(3) F 205, Karanpura New Delhi New Delhi 110 015 PAN: AAHHS 2933 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None. Respondent by : Sh. B.Ramanjaneyulu, Sr.D.R. ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi dated 31.01.2012 pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2002-03.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issual of notice. Hence I dispose of the case ex parte on merits qua the assessee after hearing the Ld.Sr.D.R.

3. Heard Shri B.Ramanjaneyulu, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue.

4.

I find that at para 4.2 of his order the Ld.CIT(A) has held as follows. “4.2. I have given careful consideration to the averments of the appellant who has heavily relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft India Ltd. (supra). However, I do not agree with the contentions of the assessee that non supply of reasons recorded by the A.O. for reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee, despite being asked for the same, would render the assessment order illegal and untenable in law or void ab initio.”

4.1. The Ld.CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ITO vs. Smt.Gurinder Kaur (2007) 288 ITR (AT) 0207 dt. 16.6.2006.

5.

The law on this subject is well settled. It is mandatory for the A.O. to communicate the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee. Non-communication of such reasons despite request renders the reopening as invalid. I rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66(Bom.). 5.1. I therefore quash the assessment order and allow the appeal of the assessee.

3.

In the result the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31st October, 2016.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →