ALKESHBHAI BHOGIBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1511/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 November 2024AY 2012-13Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) passed an order without a remand report. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order sustaining an addition. The assessee claimed the CIT(A) did not consider their reply and passed an order without a remand report from the AO, violating natural justice. The AO had also allegedly issued a notice u/s 148 without proper reasons or approval.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an order without a remand report from the AO, and if the notice u/s 148 was issued validly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250,Section 151,Section 133(6),Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, in proceeding u/s. 250 vide order dated 25/06/2024 passed for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal

taken by the assessee are as under:-

1. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred both in law and on facts while sustaining the addition made by Ld. A.O of Rs 22,61,755/- and therefore it requires to be deleted.

2. The Ld Commissioner of Income(Appeals), NFAC has not considered the reply file by the appellant on 16/03/2023 and therefore the order itself is bad in law and require to be quashed.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has asked for remand report from ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad u/s 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However without issue of remand report the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against the Income Tax Act and against the principal of natural justice, and as such the order passed by CIT(A) is not tenable in law and required to be quashed.

4. That the notice u/s 148 was issued without recording reasons and without taking any approval u/s 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as such the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law and illegal.

5.

That the notice u/s 148 was issued without considering the reply filled by the appellant u/s 133(6) of the IT Act, 1961 and as such re- opening u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction and on vague reasons. And therefore the notice issued u/s 148 required to be quashed.

6.

Notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not properly served on the assessee and as such re-assessment itself is bad in law and required to be quashed.

7.

That the appellant has explained the source of investment made in shares of Rs 16,75,349/- and Investment made of Rs 5,00,000/- in NHAI Bonds, however without appreciating the facts and reply filed by the appellant u/s 133(6), addition made by the A O and sustained by the CIT(A) is against the facts on record and require to be deleted.

8.

That the learned CIT(A) and Ld A.O has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant further appellant has not concealed any income which is chargeable to tax and as such the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1) (c) of the IT Act 1961 is bad in law and require to be drop.

9.

That the appellant has neither committed default of Sec 210 nor any default of advance payment of taxes and therefore unwanted interest charged u/s 234A 234B and 234C requires to be deleted.

10.

Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, deleted or alter any of the grounds till the appeal is finally heard and decided.”

3.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the family of the assessee was in the textile business which has been hence closed and the assessee had invested in shares from the current account of the proprietary concern of his brother. The details have been duly submitted before the Assessing Officer who has not considered the submissions given by the assessee. When the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer by the ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer has not furnished any remand report and pending filing of the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order u/s. 250 of the Act on 25-06-2024. It was prayed that the act of the ld. CIT(A) completing the proceedings even without receiving the remand report on the submissions given by the assessee is bad in law and requested that the matter needs to be examined by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. D.R. submitted that since the matter needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer, in the fitness of things, the matter should be referred to the Assessing Officer not to the ld. CIT(A). The proposal of the ld. D.R. appears to be justifiable and hence in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to Assessing Officer to pass order de-novo and pass an order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assesee.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13-11-2024

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →