| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 7038 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 147
Section 250(1) provides that first appellate authority should fix a date of hearing and give notice thereof, with the information about the time and place of hearing, to assessee as well as to AO against whose order appeal was filed and because of non-compliance by assessee, CIT(A) could not examine the issue in its entirety, therefore, matter was remanded back to AO to decide afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee.
|
Reassessment - Validity - CIT(A) held neither assessee nor his authorized representative appeared before him during course of appellate proceedings -
AO noted that as per information received from DIT (Inv.), assessee had made investments by paying “on-money” and it was neither recorded in books of account, nor assessee had furnished any evidence such as confirmation of builder concerned that no on-money was received against the sale of the Flat. AO Statted that the onus and burden to explain the investments, its source and genuineness of such payments lies with assessee. As assessee failed to prove it, AO made an addition as unexplained investment. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee. It was mentioned by CIT(A) that during appellate proceedings, in response to notice under section 250, from time to time, assessee remained non-cooperative. Held: It was settled law that unless an appeal was rejected in limine for any vital defect, section 250(1) provides that first appellate authority should fix a date of hearing and give notice thereof, with the information about the time and place of hearing, to assessee as well as to AO against whose order appeal was filed. If a party could establish that he was not properly served with notice of hearing and was therefore unable to present his case at the hearing, it could not be said that the party was given an opportunity of being heard as required under section 250(1). Because of non-compliance by assessee, CIT(A) could not examine the issue in its entirety. Therefore, matter was remanded back to AO to decide afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee.
REFERRED : CIT v. P.V. Kalayansaundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1498 (SC) ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 161 Taxman 316 (SC) : (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) : (2007) 210 CTR 30 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1257 (SC) Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 0348 (SC) CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 103 Taxman 294 (SC) : (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC) : (1999) 155 CTR 538 (SC) : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 0225 (SC) R.K. Malhotra v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai (1977) 109 ITR 537 (SC) : 1977 TaxPub(DT) 0935 (SC) PCIT v. M/S Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi) : (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0794 (Del-HC) Ankit Financial Services Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2017) 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0461 (Guj-HC) Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 322 (Delhi) : (2017) 390 ITR 456 (Delhi) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 5135 (Del-HC) Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel v. ITO & Ors. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi) : (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0794 (Del-HC) Indu Lata Rangwala v. DCIT (2017) 80 taxmann.com 102 (Delhi) : (2016) 384 ITR 337 (Delhi) : (2016) 286 CTR 474 (Delhi) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2519 (Del-HC) Yuvraj v. UOI & Anr. (2009) 315 ITR 84 (SC) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1704 (Bom-HC) Vijaykumar Srinivasan V. Vaidyanathan & Co. v. ITO (ITA No. 7363/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2007-08) Anil Jaggi v. Asstt. CIT (ITA No. 3049/Mum/2016) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0666 (Mum-Trib) ITO v. Nikhil Vinod Aggarwal Mumbai (ITA No. 2574/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2007-08) CIT v. Sunita Dhadda SLP(C) No. 9002 of 2018 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2586 (SC) M/s Paramount Communications Ltd. v. PCIT (2017-TIOL-253-SCIT) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4022 (SC)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour by way of remand
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|