Income Tax

Non mentioning reasons recorded in assessment order proved it was framed in haste – ITAT

Non mentioning reasons recorded for reopening in the assessment order proved that assessment was framed in haste without providing adequate opportunity – ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2768 (2019) (02) ITAT

The appellant assessee had sought to set aside the impugned order passed by CIT(A) confirming the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

In the instant case, the assessment was framed under section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by issuing of the notice u/s 148 of the Act.

Further, notices u/s 142(1) were also issued and served but, on failure of the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO), he proceeded to make the addition on account of cash deposit in the saving bank account.

The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the contention of the assessee that he had not received any notice by the AO, was not sustainable because all the notices were sent to him on the same address on which order u/s 271(1)(c) was served.

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee went to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal observed that from the assessment order, it was not clear as to what were the reasons, if at all recorded by the AO, for reopening the assessment.

Further, the Tribunal observed that the assessment order had been framed u/s 147 of the Act was discernible only from the fact that the AO stated to have issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act.

The Tribunal opined that the fact that reasons recorded had not been mentioned in the assessment order nor in the order passed by the CIT (A) proved that the assessment was framed in haste without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that even the CIT (A) had not provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee rather relied upon unsubstantiated fact that when order u/s 271(1)(c) was received by the assessee, he could not be believed that the notice u/s 148 of the Act and notices sent u/s 142 (1) have not been received by the assessee.

In order to meet with the ends of justice, the assessment order passed by the AO and impugned order passed by the CIT (A) was set aside and the case remanded back to the AO to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

 Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

2 days ago
  • Insurance

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price

CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…

4 days ago
  • GST

Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities

Extension of timeline for implementation of mandatory "Ship To GSTIN" and Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities GSTN Advisory dated…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT

No protective addition required in the hand of a third party when additions have been confirmed in the hands of…

5 days ago
  • arbitration

Limitation u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commences on disposal of application u/s 33 by Arbitral Tribunal – SC

Limitation for filing application u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commence from date on which application u/s 33 is disposed of…

1 week ago