AMAR DYEING WORKS (REGD.),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 30(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1452/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the case afresh after providing a hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee received compensation from DMRC for land acquisition, which the AO treated as long-term capital gain. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte as the assessee failed to comply with notices despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's addition without granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45(5)(a),Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. C. M. GargDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 15.02.2023Pronounced: 09.05.2023

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

1.

The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-10, New Delhi dated 28.12.2018.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. That having regard to the f acts 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.4,36,36,228/- on account of compensation received from DMRC for acquisition of land as long term capital gain u/s 45(5)(a) and that too without granting the opportunity of being heard and without observing the principles of natural justice.

2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.4,36,36,228/- as long term capital gain u/s 45(5)(a), is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2 Amar Dyeing Works (Regd.) 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

3.

The assessee filed return of income on 27.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.25,550/- and the same has been assessed determining the total income at Rs.4,36,61,780/-. The issue involved pertains to “The right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and re- settlement Act, 2013. The order has been passed ex-parte by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has been grated 6 opportunities by the ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee did not comply to the notice of the ld. CIT(A).

4.

Before us, it was pleaded by the ld. AR given an opportunity due compliance would be made before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR vehemently opposed to the submission of the ld. AR and argued that the assessee was lenient to attend the hearings before the revenue authorities at all the times.

5.

Having gone through the facts of the case and the assessment made, we are of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, if an opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(A) given to the assessee. Hence, we remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity of the assessee.

3 Amar Dyeing Works (Regd.) 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 09/05/2023.

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →