GYANWATI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 24(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6019/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 December 2023AY 2006-07Bench: the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) scanned AO’s order and also scanned assessee’s submissions and reproduced the same in his order in a hardly legible manner. Thereafter, ld. CIT (A) passed a cryptic order holding that assessee could not prove the source of investment and he agreed with the findings of the AO. 5. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard ld. DR for the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 6. Upon careful consideration, we note that ld. CIT (A3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s order to be cryptic and illegible. In the interest of justice and to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to pass a speaking and legible order after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concern the treatment of land purchase and construction costs as unexplained expenditure under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) treated these costs as unexplained, agreeing with the AO's findings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) order was passed in accordance with principles of natural justice and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Hearing: 20.12.2023

ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date of Order : 26.12.2023

ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of ld. CIT (Appeals)-31, New Delhi for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10. 2. Since the issues are common & connected and the appeals were heard together, these are being consolidated and disposed off by this common order.

3.

The common issue raised by the assessee is treatment of cost of purchase of land and construction cost as unexplained expenditure under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') amounting to

4.

In this case, pursuant to AO’s order treating the amount spent in house construction from unexplained sources, the assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) scanned AO’s order and also scanned assessee’s submissions and reproduced the same in his order in a hardly legible manner. Thereafter, ld. CIT (A) passed a cryptic order holding that assessee could not prove the source of investment and he agreed with the findings of the AO.

5.

Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard ld. DR for the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

6.

Upon careful consideration, we note that ld. CIT (A)’s order is a very cryptic order and also not easily legible. It is a settled law that even administrative orders have to be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) is directed to pass a speaking order which should be legible also. Needless to add, assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.

7.

In the result, these appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 26th day of December, 2023.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →