ZION PROMOTORS & DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6200/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 September 2021AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case on merit before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- under Section 68 was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were validly initiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 16.09.2021Pronounced: 27.09.2021

ORDER

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 16/09/2016 passed by CIT(A)-Faridabad for assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:

1. “Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in law and facts by suo-moto holding that since the appellant has been granted time but not filed submission on the Adjourned date 31.08.16 and therefore, the order has been passed on after a gap of 15 days i.e. on 16.09.16 even without affording further opportunity particularly when the order not passed on the fixed date

2. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in law and facts by holding that the jurisdiction u/s 147/148 has rightly been exercised by the Assessing Officer after recording the reasons and proper approval obtained as per section 151(2) and there are no requirement for exercise the same on a single day and no need to serve the reasons on the same date.

3. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified by holding that section 147/148, was not wrongly invoked, and it is based on complete information and the reasons were recorded and approval obtained as per the law as well as by holding that the exercise of jurisdiction are not for roving and fishing enquiry.

4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in law and facts by holding that the A.O. made the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- as unexplained credit based on the reasons but the Ld. CIT (A) as well as the Ld. A.O. has not disputed the evidence paced on the records .

5.

Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in law and facts by ignoring the various submissions made based on the material in support of Rs. 70,00,000/-.”

3.

The assessee is engaged in the business of developing the housing society for ready to move flat on sale. The return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 was filed on 31.10.2007 declaring income of Rs. 9,15,173/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- in respect of Section 68 vide assessment order dated 27.03.2015.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

The Ld. DR opposed the said contentions of the assessee and submitted that despite giving proper opportunity the assessee has not appeared before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order giving the finding in respect of merit as well.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has not appeared before the CIT(A) and the reason explained by the assessee is that the CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the adjournment letter as the POA was not properly filed. Thus, the CIT(A) has not given a proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case on merit. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back the entire issue to the file of the CIT (A) for proper adjudication of all the issues contested by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →