NAVEEN KUMAR PROP. M/S. K.S. HANDLOOM INDUSTRIES,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 3, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 933/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2023AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no prejudice to the revenue if the assessee was given an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a reassessment order where additions were made on account of cash deposits in a bank account. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal because the assessee did not appear during remand proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits, and whether the reassessment order was validly passed without complying with mandatory conditions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US

Hearing: 08.06.2023Pronounced: 30.06.2023

ORDER

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 07.12.2018.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. (a)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act. 1961. 1(b) That in any case and in any view of the matter, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 and passing the impugned reassessment order, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.2.

Naveen Kumar (a)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.84,98,849/- on account of deposits in bank account and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 2(b) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. A0 in making addition of Rs.84,98,849/- on account of deposits in bank account, is bad in law and against the facts and Circumstances of the case and without providing the entire adverse material available on record.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned ex-parte order passed by ld. AO and that without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and in violation of principles of natural justice.”

3.

In the instant case, the Assessment Order has been passed u/s 144 determining the total income at Rs.86,79,239/-. The additions have been made mainly on account of cash deposits and the savings bank account of the assessee maintaining with ICICI Bank.

4.

The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that the assessee did not appear before the AO in response to the notices issued by the AO in the remand proceedings.

5.

Before us, it was pleaded that given an opportunity, due compliance would be made before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR objected in principle.

Naveen Kumar 6. We find no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity be given to the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh. The revenue authorities would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings in case of non-compliance by the assessee to the notices issued.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30/06/2023.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →