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

  • Income Tax

AO took a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat was 25 lakh – ITAT

Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…

6 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Shareholders can’t be taxed for income from properties owned by the company – HC

Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…

8 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Jurisdictional error in reassessment approval can’t be shielded by the law of limitation

When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…

11 hours ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT ought to remanded whole matter of bogus purchases instead of profit determination

ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…

12 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Where proceedings u/s 153C barred by limitation, AO can’t invoke section 148 & 148A

Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…

1 day ago
  • bankruptcy

Corporate guarantees executed by corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC

Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…

1 day ago