DINESH SHARMA,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD-1(3), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3668/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 June 2023AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's grievances had not been adjudicated by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a best judgment assessment order passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal despite notices, and the appeal was decided ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte best judgment assessment order was passed without proper adjudication of the assessee's grievances by the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 156,Section 56(2)(viii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.06.2023Pronounced: 01.06.2023

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 1, Noida dated 31.05.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. The grievances of the assessee read as under:

“1. That the Assessing officer have passed the impugned best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 15/12/2016, along with notice of demand u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that is absolutely unheard part from the facts and circumstances of the case and apart from the natural justice as such the order impugned is liable to be quashed under this ground alone.

2.

That the Appellant denies his liabilities to be assessed at Rs.1,17,68,801/-, and passed order u/s 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961, ex party decision which is absolutely liable to be set aside under this ground alone.

3.

That the Assessing officer has been errored on facts & laws framing assessment order making addition arbitrary and is based on mere assumption & presumption and not on facts. The A.O. have passed order prejudicially, therefore, the impugned order have been passed unheard and liable to quash under this ground alone.

4.

That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing officer passed an impugned order for payment of Rs.1,17,44,301/- as liability for non disclosure of Income from Other Sources u/s 56(2](viii), of Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore the impugned order which have been passed unheard and liable to quash under this ground alone.

5. That the Appellant craves he leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the ground of appeal at the time of he and all above grounds are without prejudice to each other, the decision which is absolutely liable to be set -aside under this ground alone.”

3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of several notices. We therefore, decided to proceed exparte.

4. The ld. DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

We find that assessment has been framed exparte u/s 144 of the I.T.

Act, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority. It appears that the grievance of the assessee has not been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this appeal to the file of the jurisdictional ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 01.06.2023.

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →