SURESH KUMAR TODI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 35(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8015/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 January 2022AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity to explain their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened and framed ex parte under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act as no one appeared before the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal and application for additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to present their case and whether additional evidence should have been admitted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 11.01.2022Pronounced: 19.01.2022

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi, dated 24-07-2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in computing the total income of the appellant at Rs. 10,42,100/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 pased on 15.12.2017 on the basis of surmises & conjecture.

2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 10,42,100/- that are deposited in the bank by treating the same as unexplained

2 ITA 8015/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Todi Vs. ITO ignoring that the evidences the assessee has are even capable of explaining the cash deposits by ignoring and rejecting the additional evidnces filed by the appellant.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidences submitted by the assessee on the basis of surmises & conjecture without applying mind and ignoring the submissions and prayer of the assessee and just relying on baseless objection of the Ld. Assessing Officer.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in perusing the Remand Report of the AO, which is confirng the evidences filed by the assessee such as Statemewnts of affairs as on 31.03.2010, Receipt and Payment A/c, P&L A/c and summary of cash deposits for the eyar under consideration, and concluding that assessee should have submitted more documents as referred by AO, ignoring the fact that Ao has not sought any further evidences from assessee and submitted Remand Report summarily and denying opportunity to the assessee and leading to unnecessary litigation.

5. The assessee reserves his right to add or delete any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

2.

At the time of hearing no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that the notice sent through speed post has been duly served upon the assessee. However, in past the notices sent, were returned by the postal authoriteis. Under the facts, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee.

3.

The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessment was reopened and thereafter the assessment was framed under Section 144 read

3 ITA 8015/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Todi Vs. ITO with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, as no one had appeared before the assessing authority on behalf of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved against the ex parte assessment, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal. It is also seen that before the learned CIT(A), the assessee had filed application for additional evidence. That was also dismissed by the learned CIT(A). Aggrieved, against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

The learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has been negligent throughout and did not appear before the assessing authority. Moreover, he could not support his claim before the CIT(Appeals).

6.

I have heard the learned DR and perused the material on record. It is seen from the record that there was no representation before the Assessing Officer on behalf of the assessee. It is further noticed that before the learned CIT(A), the assessee had filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

That application was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). After considering the totality of the facts and the material placed before me, I am of the considered view that looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the assessee should have been given an opportunity to explain his case. I, therefore, in the interest of 4 ITA 8015/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Todi Vs. ITO principles of natural justice, hereby set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. Ground raised in the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →