RAHUL YADAV,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 609/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 April 2023AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and the CIT(A) had also upheld the AO's order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s confirmation of an ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 144. The assessee contended that notices for hearing were not properly served and principles of natural justice were violated.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed ex-parte without proper service of notice and opportunity of being heard is valid. Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are sustainable on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.04.2023

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)- 2, Noida dated 24.11.2017 pertaining to AY 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. 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 framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144 when notice for hearing was not served to the appellant.

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 framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 144, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

./2018 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,96,57,600/- allegedly on the ground that the cash deposits are unexplained without observing the principles of natural justice.

4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.94,446/- allegedly on the ground that assessee has failed to produce the evidence of deduction under chapter VI-A when the payment is made through banking channel.

5. 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.1 ,97,52,046/-, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3.

Although assessee has raised several grounds, at the outset, ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed that assessment has been done ex-parte by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), hence he prayed that an opportunity may be given to the assessee in the interest of justice to canvass the appeal properly. Ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection to this plea.

4.

Upon careful consideration, we note that assessment was framed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Ld. CIT (A) has also noted that assessee representative sought adjournments and upheld the order of AO. In the interest of justice, we remit the issues to the file of ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) is directed to pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

5.

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of April, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →