SATISH,PANIPAT, HARYANA vs. ACIT,WARD-1, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 370/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 June 2023AY 2012-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the lack of opportunity. The assessment order was set aside as it was passed prematurely, before the statutory date for response. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 147 without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to respond to a notice issued under Section 142(1). The assessment order was passed before the date specified in the notice for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 was bad in law due to the lack of opportunity to the assessee to respond to a notice under Section 142(1) before the stipulated date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv, Shri Rajeev Kumar, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 15.12.2022 arising from the assessment order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 r.w. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2012-13.

2.

As per the grounds of appeal

1.

, the assessee has raised multiple grounds and has inter alia submitted that order passed by the AO under Section 147 of the Act is bad in law inasmuch as the assessment order was passed without giving opportunity to the assessee.

3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset adverted to the notice dated 31.10.2019 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 in question and pointed out that as per the aforesaid notice the date of hearing was fixed for 14th November, 2019 at 11.30 a.m. However, the assessment order was passed on 11.11.2019 without waiting for the response to the notice under Section 142(1). The ld. counsel thus submits that a serious prejudice has been caused by the Assessing Officer in passing the order without allowing the assessee to avail the time mentioned in statutory notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The ld. counsel thereafter submits that there are many other legal and factual grounds to assail the action of the lower authorities.

4. We straightaway find merit in the preliminary contention of the assessee towards lack of opportunity in the light of the date mentioned in the notice issued under Section 142(1). The assessment order has preceeded the appointed date for response under Section 142(1) of the Act. Glaringly, it is not permissible. Thus, on this point alone, we set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer designated for assessment. Proper opportunity shall be given to the assessee to defend its case on all points of law and facts involved. The Assessing Officer shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving a resonable opportunity in this regard.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for stastical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/06/2023

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →