M/S. JEPPIAAR BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased an immovable property for ₹.2,05,04,000/-. Despite notices, the assessee did not respond, leading the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment under section 147 read with section 144, treating the investment as unexplained under section 69.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the AO's order without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee to represent its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14.
The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal, amongst which only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without there being proper opportunity to the assessee.
3. At the outset, we note that the assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and determined the income of the assessee at ₹.2,05,04,000/-. As per information received from Non-Filer Monitoring System for the financial year 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee purchased immovable property of ₹.2,05,04,000/-. Accordingly, various notices have been issued on the assessee. Since there was no response from the assessee against the notices, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment according to his best judgement in the absence of any explanation from the assessee by treating the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. On perusal of the appellate order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer since there was no representation from the assessee.
The ld. AR Shri Shrenik Chordia, CA, submits that due to the circumstances beyond its control, the assessee could not represent its case either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR requested to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessee is ready to prosecute its case if the Tribunal afford an opportunity.
The ld. DR Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT reported objection that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) given many opportunities to the assessee, as the assessee failed to utilize the same.
As discussed above, we note from the assessment order as well as impugned order, it is established that there was no opportunity for the assessee in prosecuting his case, but, however, on the undertaken given by the ld. AR that the assessee is ready to prosecute his case before the Assessing Officer without fail, we deem it proper in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for his consideration afresh. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence in support of his claim and the Assessing Officer shall conduct the assessment proceedings de novo. Thus, grounds Nos. 1 to 6 are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th July, 2024 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
