KANJI DEVA PATEL,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6071/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 March 2017AY 2002-034 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the ground challenging the reopening of the assessment. Therefore, this specific issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment under Section 148 without adequate reason. The CIT(A) had not adjudicated this specific ground of appeal. The assessee also raised other grounds regarding disallowances and interest/penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was validly done without adequate reason. Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds raised before him.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Date of Hearing -07.03.2017 Date of Order – 16.03.2017

O R D E R PER: SHAMIM YAHYA

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT-A dated. 06.06.2011 and pertains to assessment year 2002-03. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: Grounds of Appeal before ITAT:-

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in reassessing total income of Rs. 1054241/- as against assessed income of Rs. 956643/-

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in reopening the case u/s 148 without adequate reason.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO. erred in not allowing interest of Rs.480001-against business income and or income from house property. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AC. erred in not allowing society charges of Rs.5464/- 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) didn't decide ground no 2 & 4 and also confirmed ground no 3 without giving any reason 6. That interest u/s 234 is wrongly levied & penalty is wrongly initiated u/s 271[1] [c]. (B) Relief Prayed: The appellant therefore prays follows. 1. To allow society charges of Rs.5464/- 2. To quash order passed u/s 348. 3. To allow interest of Rs.48000/-against business income/income from house property. 4. To delete the disallowance interest u1s 234 & initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (C) General: -  The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion.  This appeal is filed in time and may please be allowed in full.

3.

We have the Ld. DR. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, in our considered opinion the appeal can be disposed of by hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

4.

We find that in this case the ground no. 2 reproduced above assessee has challenged the reopening. It has been urged that AO has erred in reopening the case u/s. 148 without adequate reason. We find that Ld. CIT- A in his appeal order has not adjudicated upon this issue raised. Such a ground was duly raised before him. In these circumstances in our considered opinion this issue needs to be remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT- A, for passing a speaking order on this issue not adjudicated by him. 5. accordingly, the ground no. 2 relating to assessee’s challenge of the reopening is remitted to the file of Ld. CIT-A. The Ld. CIT-A shall pass a speaking order on this issue after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →