What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the AO an opportunity to examine and respond to the documents submitted by the assessee during the appellate stage. Therefore, the issue was set aside for fresh consideration by the AO.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 3,62,37,524/-. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) deleted the addition based on documents filed by the assessee during appeal without giving the AO an opportunity to verify or rebut them.

What were the issues?

Whether the deletion of an addition by the CIT(A) based on documents submitted during appeal, without affording the AO an opportunity of hearing, violates the principles of natural justice.

DDIT vs Sh. Satyendra Singh Bhati, New… | ITAT Delhi 2016

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT

For Appellant: Adv. & Sh. MP

For Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR, Adv. & Sh. MP

Date of Hearing : 12-07-2016 Date of Order : 08-08-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM

The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 30/11/2007 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.

3,62,37,524/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment during the appellate proceedings but has proceeded to adjudicate the matter without providing any opportunity to the AO.

2. The appellant craves to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.

The facts narrated by the Revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

At the time of hearing, Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in dispute on the basis of the documents filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, but no opportunity of hearing has been given to the AO, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice. She also draw our attention towards para no. 4 to 5.1 of the impugned order in which Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in dispute on the basis of the documents filed by the assessee. She also draw our attention towards the AO’s order and stated that the assessee has not filed any document before the AO and despite that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition which is contrary to principles of natural justice.

On the contrary, Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee has relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the assessee has filed all the evidences before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) and requested to uphold the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

After hearing both the parties and perusing the records available with us, especially the para nos. 4 to 5.1 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that Assessee has filed some documents before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has not afforded any opportunity to the AO for verification and rebuttal the same which is contrary to principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are setting aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessee is at liberty to produce any evidence/document for substantiating his claim before the Assessing Officer.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 08/08/2016.

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATYENDRA SINGH BHATI, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments