What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity.

The assessee declared an income of Rs. 3,72,270, but the AO made an addition of Rs. 43,15,000 for unexplained investment in property. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Sh. Vinod Jain vs ITO | s.250(6) | ITAT Delhi 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 24.08.2016Pronounced: 29.08.2016

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18.02.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:

“1. The impugned order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) confirming the order of the Learned Assessing officer is in mechanical manner and bad in law, wrong on facts and absolutely based on suspicion surmises and conjectures.

2. That CIT (Appeals) has erred law on facts on confirming the order of Learned Assessing Officer of making addition to the returned income of the assessee just because no proper evidence and documents could be furnished ignoring the submissions by the AR of the assessee and facts and material available on records.

2 Vinod Jain 3. The CIT (Appeals) has without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the AR of the assessee has passed the order under section 250(6) of the income tax act,1961 in hypothetical and imaginary manner.

The CIT (Appeals) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 4315000/- in the returned income of the assessee of Rs.372270/- just because of non-furnishing the property papers for the purchase of property which is completely wrong on facts and circumstances of the case and in hypothetical manner.

That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal

at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other and the addition made of Rs. 4315000/- may be deleted.”

3. During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. We, therefore, proceeded to dispose off the appeal ex-parte after hearing the ld. DR, of course on merit.

4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 22.02.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.3,72,270/-. However, the assessment was framed by the AO at an income of Rs.46,87,270/- by making an addition of Rs.43,15,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the property no. B-74, Sector-12, THA, Aawaseea Colony, Chander Nagar, Ghaziabad.

5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the AO by passing the ex-parte order.

3 Vinod Jain 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. DR supported the order of the authorities below.

I have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO, without giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. I, therefore, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard, the assessee is also directed to cooperate and not to seek undue or unwarranted adjournments.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 29/08/2016)

SH. VINOD JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments