Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. BRR KUMARSHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
(Assessment Year: 2020-21) Satishchandra Hiralal Berawala, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of A/8, Narayan Estate, Income Tax, Bharuch-392001 Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara. [PAN No.ACQPB6172N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Mehta, A.R. Respondent by: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR 25.11.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 27.11.2024 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 29.03.2024 passed for the Assessment Year 2020-21.
The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
1. The Ld Addl. JCIT A grossly erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the preliminary issue raised regarding the violation of statutory provision of Sec 143(1)(a) of the Income tax Act 1961 the Act in the form of non- issue and service of the notice by the AO u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act before making the adjustment of Rs. 6,50,830/- Satishchandra H Berawala vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2020-21 - 2– 2. The Ld Addl. JCIT A grossly erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the ground regarding non speaking order of the Ld AO passed u/s. 143(1) 3. The Ld AddI JCIT A has grossly erred in law and is not justified in confirming the addition made by the Ld AO without deciding the involved question of law and not allowing the exemption exceeding RS 3 lakhs u/s. 10(10AA)(ii) of the Act considering the invalid Gazette Notification No 50588 E dated 31.05.2002 issued by CBDT effective 01.04.1998 4. The Ld AddI JCIT A grossly erred in not adjudicating the raised ground in appeal to the effect that taxed Leave Encashment amount exceeding RS 3 lakhs qualifies for relief u/s. 891 of the Act.
5. Your appellant craves leave to add amend alter any ground of appeal 3. An adjustment of Rs.6,50,830/- has been made by the CPC, Bangalore u/s.143(1) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that before making adjustment u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act, no notice has been given to the assessee.
We have gone through the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act which reads as under:
“… …. Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode…”
As per the provisions of the Act, an intimation has to be given to the assessee whether in writing or in electronic mode before making such adjustments. The revenue authorities have been asked in the earlier hearing to submit the proof of issue of notice to the assessee which the revenue authorities failed to produce. Hence, in the interest of speedy justice, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed, granting liberty to the Revenue to approach the Tribunal in case the right proof of issue of notice could be found.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 27.11.2024
Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 27.11.2024 Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,