SHRI RESHU BOKTOO AND SONS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD 2ND, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 294/ASR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 September 2022AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2005-06. The assessee claimed that no opportunity of being heard was provided and adjournment applications were not considered. The CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of Rs. 7,41,192/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194-A,Section 194-J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 01.09.2022Pronounced: 12.09.2022

This appeal is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar (Camp at Jammu) dated 28.02.2018, in respect of the Assessment Year 2005-06, challenging the order on account of principles of natural justice.

2 Reshu Boktoo & Sons v. ITO 2. None attended for the assessee, however after going to the appeal memo, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee and thus, the Appellant has challenged the said order on account of not providing any opportunity and considering the adjournment applications filed on the office record of the ld. CIT(A), Jammu. In view of the principles of natural justice, it was decided to take up the case for hearing with the consent of the ld. DR.

3.

At the time of hearing before us, the ld. DR has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the ld. CIT(A) was justified, on the facts of the case in confirming the disputed addition of Rs.7,41,192/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source, as the assessee was required u/s 194-A and 194-J of the Act on the said payments.

4.

Having heard the ld. DR, perusal of the record and the impugned order, we find that the assessee has been denied an opportunity of being heard before taking adverse view against it and thereby confirming the disputed addition. In view of the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to be restored back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh by passing a speaking order after granting

3 Reshu Boktoo & Sons v. ITO proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings.

5.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.09.2022.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →