SUKSHAM FINLEASE & INVESTMENT P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 724/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 April 2023AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel moved an application to withdraw the appeal. Considering the application, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2010-11. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings, the addition made under Section 68, and alleged violations of natural justice by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

The primary issues revolved around the validity of reassessment proceedings and alleged procedural irregularities in the assessment and appellate orders, including denial of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. C.N. PRASAD

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr DR
Hearing: 12/04/2023Pronounced: 12/04/2023

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-25, New Delhi dated 04.12.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2010-11.

2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :-

1.

That the reassessment order dated 29.12.2017 passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act of the Assessing Officer is void ab intio, bad in law, arbitrary and is perverse and the Ld. CIT (Appeal) without giving proper opportunity of being heard, is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making an impugned addition for Rs. 1,02,00,000/- U/s. 68 upon the assessee.

2.

That the reopening in the instant case is invalid as it is defective and made simply relying upon information received by Ld. A.O. from other sources without its independent verification / examination.

3. That the reassessment order is void ab intio as the same is not passed as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshaft.

4. The action of Ld. CIT (Appeal) is against the principles of natural justice in as much as passing the impugned appeal order without granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant and more so where the appellant had itself prayed for an opportunity under the circumstances of the case.

It is gross negligence on the part of Ld. CIT (Appeals) in passing an appeal order without fully and completely looking at the facts on records before him on behalf of the appellant and calling to confirm the addition.

5.

The action of Ld. CIT (Appeal) is against the principles of law in as much as dismissing the appeal of the assessee without affording it

to controvert the findings of the investigation report or other material as relied upon by the Ld. A.O. without granting any opportunity to the assessee to deal with the same. Ld. A.O. failed to provide an opportunity of cross examination of any person on whose statements investigation report was drawn without any reference to the case of the assessee or to provide a copy of the investigation reports and other material despite several specific requests made on behalf of the assessee and Ld. CIT (Appeals) had erred in law in not holding the action of Ld. A.O. as illegal and void-ab-initio.

6.

That the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making an additions of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- U/s. 68 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of commission paid by the Appellant.

Ld. CIT(Appeals) had further erred in law in relying upon incorrect facts narrated in the impugned assessment order, which had been duly opposed and controverted by the assessee, without granting any opportunity of cross examination or copy of investigation report and other material.

7.

The Appellant craves leave to add, delete modify or vary any of the grounds of appeal at any time during the pendency of the appeal or at the time of hearing.

3. The Counsel for the assessee moved the following application :-

3.

Noting the contents of the application the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

4.

Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 12.04.2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →