DURABLE DOORS AND WINDOWS,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 60(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 1960/DEL/2023Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 November 2023AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member)2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed orders without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of INR 21,67,999 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) due to a mismatch between Form 26AS receipts and book receipts. The assessee claims principles of natural justice were not followed.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made due to mismatch in receipts was justified without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Whether principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 09.05.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.

The Grounds of appeal read as under:

“1. That the addition of INR 21,67,999 (i.e. excess of Form 26As over Gross receipts as per the financials) made by the Assessing Officer (Assessing Officer) and confirmed by the NFAC CIT(A) is bad in law and in facts of the case. 2. That the Principal of natural justice is not followed by the Assessing Officer as well as NFAC CIT(A).” 3. In this case, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) both passed an order without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. The addition was to the tune of Rs.21,67,999/- being mismatch between 26AS receipt and book receipt. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee.

4. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the records. We find that it will in the interest of justice, if the matter is remitted to the file of the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity to explain the matters. Accordingly, the issue is remitted to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall decide the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes ex-parte. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/11/2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →