Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2022 (1) TMI 586 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - deduction claimed u/s 54EC - denial of natural justice - no documentary evidence was placed on record by the assessee to establish the genuineness of the fact of claiming deduction u/s 54EC - HELD THAT - All documents notices and replies coupled with documents goes to show that the A.O. during the course of assessment had raised queries/enquiries and sought information from the assessee on the issues and the assessee had also replied to the said queries and filed supportive documents. After selecting the case of the assessee for limited scrutiny the A.O. issued detailed query letter to the assessee and asked to produce the details and evidences for verification and in response thereof the assessee had furnished all the details vide reply to the AO - on perusal of the assessment order the A.O. himself has clearly admitted in the said order that the assessee through his representative had submitted electronic response through e-filling portal/ITBA and necessary details on various queries were also submitted by the ld. AR and after examining the said details the A.O. had categorically mentioned that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted reasonable details and documents related to the limited scrutiny issue which were examined by the A.O. and after considering the submission and supporting details filed by the assessee on the limited issue the A.O. had accepted the returned income. Although it is an admitted case by the ld. Pr.CIT that he had called for the record and gone through and examined the assessment records of the preset case which was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS but he was of the view that the AO has not made proper detailed i.e deep inquiry on the issue. The ld. Pr.CIT has not looked into details called for by the A.O. and the replies submitted by the assessee to the A.O. during the assessment proceedings. However the ld. Pr.CIT has only stated that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence the conclusion of the ld. Pr. CIT that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is not a matter of subjective satisfaction of the ld. Pr. CIT. He therefore ought to have found out this on the basis of objective material after assessing the contention raised by the assessee. He however failed to do so and reached a conclusion that the order was prejudicial with a view that the present AO shall undertake that exercise after the assessment has been set aside for his consideration. Thus according to us such a view or action is not well founded in the law as has already been held by the various Hon ble High courts. It is mandatory to apply the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any statutory provision or not. As per facts of the present case the assessee was not afforded opportunity much less sufficient opportunity to give the reply to the show cause notice. Therefore it is clear that the ld. Pr. CIT in a hurriedly manner without affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee had passed impugned order by violating principles of audi alteram partem. Thus keeping in view the principles laid down by the Coordinate Bench of Cuttak ITAT in the case of Jaidurga Minerals 2020 (8) TMI 272 - ITAT CUTTACK and in the case of Jagnnath Prasad Bhargva 1942 (7) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and in view of the above factual position the ld. Pr.CIT has committed a gross error in not providing effective/reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order. Accordingly the revisional proceedings framed u/s 263 stands quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
|