BHUWAN PRAKASH JUYAL,ROORKEE vs. ITO, ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5553/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 July 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee for the ex parte orders, set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment and consideration of penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was completed ex parte under Section 144, leading to additions to income. The CIT(A) also confirmed these additions ex parte. A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also imposed.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte assessment and penalty orders were passed without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, and if so, whether they should be set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

For Appellant: Shri Tilak Raj, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Hearing: 18.07.2016Pronounced: 18.07.2016

ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee are recalled matters inasmuch as the earlier combined ex parte order passed by the Tribunal was subsequently recalled vide order dated 24.5.2016 in MA Nos.345 & 346/Del/2015.

2.

Without going into unnecessary details, it is noticed that the assessee is an employee whose assessment was completed u/s 144 determining the total income at Rs.6,87,850/- as against the returned income of Rs.4,09,650/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions by passing the impugned order ex parte. The other appeal is against the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act pursuant to the additions made in the quantum proceedings.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR submitted the reasons which led to the passing of the assessment order u/s 144 and the impugned order ex parte. We are satisfied with the same. Without going into the merits or otherwise of the additions made/penalty confirmed, we set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter to the file of AO for making denovo assessment after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and, thereafter, considering the question of imposition or otherwise of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →