ELENGOVAN RAJU,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 17(4), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to prosecute their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with additions made for undisclosed income. The assessee claimed lack of proper opportunity to present their case.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the AO's order without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2015-16.
The assessee raised 7 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 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] determining total income of the assessee at ₹.42,44,340/- as against NIL income, inter alia, making addition on account of undisclosed short term capital gain and undisclosed interest income. On perusal of the assessment order at page 5, we note that the Assessing Officer held that the assessee neither furnished any explanation or papers/documents nor ITR is filed nor any explanation regarding capital gain. The Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment according to his best judgement in the absence of any explanation from the assessee. Likewise, on perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) at para 6.2, clearly shows that the assessee filed fresh evidence before the ld. CIT(A) without proper application seeking admission of the said fresh evidence and the ld. CIT(A) held the same as not admissible for not furnishing before the Assessing Officer having in the possession of the assessee, further for not filing proper application seeking admission of fresh evidence.
The ld. AR Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate submits that the assessee furnished valuation report before the ld. CIT(A), but, however, no application filed seeking admission of the said fresh evidence, as the assessee was not properly advised to do the same and requested to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessee is ready to prosecute his case if the Tribunal afford an opportunity.
The ld. DR Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT 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 7 are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 19th 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 →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
