AMIT SABHARWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5413/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 February 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the issues to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. This was done in the interest of natural justice, to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and to consider all submissions and evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the AO. The additions were on account of a difference between gross receipts in the P&L account and the 26AS statement, and an ad-hoc disallowance of expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions and disallowances without appreciating the assessee's submissions and evidence, and without providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI J.S. REDDY

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Sh. Somil

Date of Hearing: 28-01-2016 Date of Order : 05-02-2016

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 27.8.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 on the following concise grounds:-

“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 21,40,567/- on account of difference between gross receipt of profit and loss account and statement of 26AS that too without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the submissions / evidences of the assessee.

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in making adhoc / estimated disallowance of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of expenses debited in profit and loss account that too without giving adequate opportunity of hearing.

3.

That in any case and any view of the matter, action of the ld. CIT(A) in not reversing the action of the AO in making the impugned addition / disallowance and framing the impugned assessment order which is contrary to law and facts, void ab initio, beyond jurisdiction, and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, by recording incorrect facts and findings and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.

4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of the AO in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. That the appellants craves the lave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

2.

The facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not being repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in confirming the action of AO in making the addition of Rs. 21,40,567/- on account of difference between gross receipt of profit and loss account and statement of 26AS that too without appreciating the facts and 2 circumstances of the case and without considering the submissions / evidences of the assessee. He further stated that Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in making adhoc / estimated disallowance of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of expenses debited in profit and loss account that too without giving adequate opportunity of hearing. It was further stated that Ld. CIT(A) was erred in not reversing the action of the AO in making the impugned addition / disallowance and framing the impugned assessment order which is contrary to law and facts, void ab initio, beyond jurisdiction, and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, by recording incorrect facts and findings and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. In view of the above, he requested that the issue in dispute may be set aside to the file of the AO for fresh consideration with the directions to give full opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider the submission and the evidences filed by the assessee and decide the issue in dispute afresh.

4.

On the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the aforesaid request of the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee. He relied upon the orders of the authorities below and requested that the same may be upheld.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. After going through the relevant documents available on record, we are of the view that assessee has throughout made the contention that AO has not granted adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without considering the submissions / evidences of the assessee, which is in the interest of natural justice, is very essential. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, under the law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The AO is also directed to consider the submissions and evidences, if any, to be submitted by the Assessee, afresh and decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law. However, the Assessee is also directed to produce all the submissions and evidences to the AO, so that AO may consider the same, as per rules.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05/2/2016.

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →