SANDEEP ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 792/CHANDI/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 August 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was heard ex-parte as notices were sent to a wrong email ID. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and inability to make compliances. The Revenue also conceded that the order was passed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee is valid. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 147/148 deserves to be quashed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 06/12/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. In the present appeal, the Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. CIT (A), Chandigarh-2/10979/2019-20 has erred in passing order dtd. 06.12.2023 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act").

1.

2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of Ld. AO in initiating, continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 and hence the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed.

3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy C1T(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,19,50,000/- made by Ld. AO by erroneously holding the same as short term capital gain by assuming the amount of loan raised as purchase cost which is without due application of mind and more-so when amount as per registered purchase deed and legitimate expenses thereon should have been considered as purchase cost.

4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 and then by Worthy CIT(A) u/s 250 deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

5.

That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.”

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →