AMIT GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1015/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 December 2023AY 2019-20Bench: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)6 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was invalid as it did not bear the mandatory DIN number as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Therefore, the order was deemed to have never been issued.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the AO's assessment. The appeal raised several grounds, including issues with the notice under Section 143(2) and additions made under Section 69A. A key ground challenged the validity of the CIT(A)'s order for lacking a DIN number.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the CIT(A)'s appellate order due to the absence of a mandatory DIN number. Other issues included the validity of the Section 143(2) notice and additions made under Section 69A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY & SH. N. K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 19/12/2023Pronounced: 19/12/2023

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi dated 22.02.2020 pertaining to A.Y. 2019-20.

2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the Assessment order passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -31, New Delhi (Ld. AO) assessing the gross total income of the appellant at Rs. 44,22,770/- as against the revised gross income amounting to Rs. 16,70,971/-;

2.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings initiated are bad in law as no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was validly served on the assessee before the limitation period;

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Hon'ble CIT(A) grossly erred in rejecting the submission of the assessee that the notice issued under Section 143(2) is bad in law being issued without jurisdiction;

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the addition amounting to Rs. 12,50,000/- made by the Ld. AO under Section 69A of the Act pertaining to the cash found from the locker.

4.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 12,50,000/- as sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is made on surmises and conjectures, on notional basis without any relevant basis and cogent evidence and reasoning;

5.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition made by the Ld. AO is contradictory to the satisfaction of the Ld. AO recorded in the case of M/s Shankar Lal Ved Prakash in terms of provisions of Section 153C of the Act;

6.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 12,50,000/- as sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) tantamount to double jeopardy;

7. That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO grossly erred in not considering the revised computation of income filed by the Appellant on record, claiming long term capital loss amounting to Rs. 2,13,871/- as against the long-term capital gain reported in the return of income amounting to Rs. 15,01,796/- 7.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the revised computation of income which is against the mandatory principles of Tax Payers Charter; & That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, void ab initio and be deemed to have never been issued as no mandatory DIN is mentioned;

9.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play;

3.

Ground No.8 goes to the root of the matter as it challenges the legality of the order of the CIT(A) as it does not bear DIN.

4.

Since this ground goes to the root of the matter we decided to adjudicate it first. The CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 is 5. binding on the revenue and is as under :-

7.

Clause-4 of the aforementioned circular when read with clause-2 makes the appellate order not in conformity with the mandate of the circular and, therefore, it shall be treated as invalid and deem to have never been issued.

8.

In the light of the circular the order of the first appellate authority is treated as invalid and has never been issued. 9. However, the CIT(A) is at liberty to reframe the appellate order in line with the mandate of CBDT circular (supra) after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Decision announced in the open court on 19.12.2023.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →