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

  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002

No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward arrest order & material in possession to Adjudicating Authority

No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward the arrest order and the material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority. It…

3 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Release of seized assets if mandatory on completion of 120 days? Question referred to Larger Bench

Whether the release of seized assets is mandatory upon completion of 120 days –High Court refers the case to a…

24 hours ago
  • Uncategorized

EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31/10/2026

EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31st October 2026 Taking into account…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Earlier acceptance is relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation of fictitious investment

Earlier acceptance of investment is a relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation that investments were fictitious from inception – High…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

A bald statement recorded during survey can not be basis for any addition

A bald statement recorded during survey would not in itself be a foundation for any addition - ITAT In a…

4 days ago
  • ICAI

ICAI issued Guidelines for responding to Tenders by Chartered Accountants

ICAI issued Guidelines for responding to Tenders by Chartered Accountants The ICAI has issued Tender guidelines to Chartered Accountants for…

4 days ago