PUSHP KAMAL SURI (L/H OF AMARJIT LAL SURI),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 51(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6910/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2020AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex parte order without deciding the appeal on merits and without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. The impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings against the assessee for AY 2011-12, alleging non-filing of return and unexplained cash deposits. The AO framed an assessment under Section 144/147, determining total income at Rs. 10,24,500/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and deciding the appeal on merits. Whether the reassessment proceedings and assessment order were validly initiated and passed, especially concerning the deceased assessee and the legal heir.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250(6),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. BHAVNESH SAINI & SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI

Hearing: 23/12/2020Pronounced: 23/12/2020

ORDER

PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM:

1.

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.06.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- 17, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

Assessee is an individual. AO noted that information was received by him that assessee has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 and assessee has deposited cash of Rs.17,74,500/- in his saving bank of account. The AO initiated the reopening u/s 147/148 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny and subsequently assessment was framed u/s 144/147 of the Act vide order dated 25.12.2018 and the total income was determined at Rs.10,24,500/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide ex parte order dated 25.06.2019 in Appeal No.10316/2018-19 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds:

1.

“That the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is against facts and law.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in passing ex-parte order and not affording reasonable opportunity of representation. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in not disposing off the appeal on merits inspite of alleged non attendance. 4. That the learned Income-tax Officer has erred to issue notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the name of the deceased assessee and at old address. As the assessee deceased prior to the issue of notice hence the issue of notice in his name is illegal, unjustified and against the provision of law. 5. That the learned Income-tax Officer has erred in holding that the return of income filed in response to notice is unverified when in fact it was so verified by the legal heir, hence passing of an order under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is illegal, unjustified and against the provision of law. Page | 2

6.

That the order passed under section 144 / 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 was sent at old address of the deceased assessee in spite of the new address of the legal heir being on record, hence there was no service of the order.

7.

That the learned Income-tax Officer is not justified in holding that the deposit of Rs. 10,24,500/- is income of the deceased assessee and in further holding that the legal heir responsible to explain transactions taking place after death of the assessee when there can be no income of the deceased after death. 8. That the learned Income-tax Officer is not justified in holding that acquisition of money offered by the assessee is not satisfactory and taxing the same under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 9. It is prayed that the appellant may be permitted to add, to alter or to withdrawn any of the Grounds at the time of hearing.” 4. On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed though the notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after considering the material on record and hearing the DR.

5.

Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO.

6. We have heard Learned DR and perused the material on record. The perusal of CIT(A) order reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow Page | 3 the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 25.06.2019 and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for 7. statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2020

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →