SABA HUSSAN ANSARI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT 2(1) DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 285/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 August 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it fit to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication on merit, considering principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a hearing opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) who confirmed additions made by the AO. The AO had made additions under Section 68 and Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) without proper inquiry or opportunity to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO made additions without proper inquiry and opportunity to the assessee, and if the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 68,Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Solanki, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.08.2024Pronounced: 13.08.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 13.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.03.2022 passed by learned NFAC, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Page 1 of 3 CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. It is further observed that the CIT(A) has basically confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions. Ld. AR also drew us to Para 7-8 of assessment-order to show that the AO has made best judgement assessment u/s 144 without making any enquiry on the affidavits of relatives (from whom the assessee received funds for making investment in purchase of immovable property) submitted by assessee to AO against draft assessment-order and made addition u/s 68. Further, the AO has also made addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) without giving proper opportunity to assessee.

He submitted that the matter needs to be set aside to AO for a proper verification and adjudication afresh. Ld. AR agrees that the assessee shall extend full co-operation to AO in the matter of any enquiry or verification.

Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to remit this matter to Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO).

3.

Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of JAO for a proper verification and adjudication on merit, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The JAO is directed to give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by earlier assessment-order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by JAO and do not seek

Page 2 of 3 appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

4.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →