GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous

2015 (6) TMI 359 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (6) TMI 359 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Validity of assessment under sec. 144 - Held that:- No doubt that assessee remained non-cooperative before the Revenue Authorities, but we are also of view that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the assessment order in a routine, without discussing in detail the facts and circumstance of the case and also did not deal the issue on merit and passed a non-speaking order. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we remit the issues to the files of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

manate out of separate Orders dated 7.12.2009, 25.3.1997 & 06.1.2010 passed by the respective Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to the Asstt. Years 1992-93, 1993-94 & 1991-92. Since the issues involved in these appeals are identical and similar, hence, these are being disposed of by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience, we are dealing with ITA No.91/Del/2013 (A.Y. 1992- 93) wherein the following grounds have been raised:- "1. That on facts and in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

side its books of accounts nor there was any evidence of accrual or receipt of money over and above the recorded sum. Thus on facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was no legal warrant to make any addition as income, which neither accrued nor received by the assessee. ii). The impugned addition of ₹ 49,31,568/- being assumed undeclared profit on sales made outside the books of accounts deserves to be deleted being illegal, void, without jurisdiction and untenable on facts and i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nts. The addition of ₹ 8,91,832/- by way of income on the assumption that such income was not disclosed in the books of account was illegal, erroneous and based on wrong premises. The impugned addition of ₹ 8,91,832/- deserves to be deleted being illegal, void, without jurisdiction and untenable on facts and in law. 5. That the relevant grounds of appeal against the additions and disallowances of ₹ 4931568/-; ₹ 98195/- and ₹ 891832/- were not adjudicated by the Ld. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not been taken into consideration by the Id. CIT (A). Consequently, the Id. CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to hold that no compliance was made on the date of hearing thereby dismissing the appeal without taking into consideration the petition and also the telegram. 7. That after receipt of Appellate order dated 7.12.2009, the appellant filed a petition dated 20.2.2010 on 26.2.2010 praying for recall of the Appellate order followed by reminders vide petitions dated 28.7.2010; 8.2.2011; 13 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nding recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserves to be quashed and annulled being void, illegal and without jurisdiction." 2. Notice for hearing was issued to the assessee by RPAD for today i.e. 09.3.2015. In response to the same Authorised Representative filed an Application for adjournment. As per record the present appeal came up for hearing before the Bench on 07.3.2013 and the case was then adjourned for 28.5.2013. On 28.5.2013, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any applicati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng on 09.3.2015. In spite of the same, assessee has not appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute and filed the Application for adjournment. It is pertinent to mention here that before the AO assessee also remained non-cooperative and the AO finally passed the order u/s. 144 of the I.T. Act. As per the impugned order also assessee remained non-cooperative before the Ld. CIT(A), who has passed the order in the absence of the assessee. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iding the Appeals exparte qua assessee and after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 3. Ld. DR has stated that assessee remained non-cooperative before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A and even before this Bench and therefore, the assessee is not entitled for any lenient view from this Bench. Hence, he requested that the Appeals filed by the Assessee may be dismissed. 4. After hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that no d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ixed for hearing Remark 1 5.10.07 12.10.07 On request case adjourned for 26.10.07 2 26.10.07 24.12.07 On request case adjourned for 21.1.08 3 21.1.08 - On request case adjourned for 11.2.08 4 11.2.208 - On request case adjourned. 5 14.2.08 27.2.08 On request adjourned 14.5.08 6 14.5.08 - On request case adjourned 7 28.7.08 18.8.08 On request case adjourned. 8 26.8.08 12.9.08 None attended nor any application for adjournment was filed. 9 24.11.08 8.12.08 On request case adjourned. 10 29.1.09 16.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cord." 5. After going through the above, we are of the view that no doubt that assessee remained non-cooperative before the Revenue Authorities, but we are also of view that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the assessment order in a routine, without discussing in detail the facts and circumstance of the case and also did not deal the issue on merit and passed a non-speaking order. For the sake of convenience, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) made in his order dated 7.12.2009 vide para nos. 4 & 5 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed." 6. After perusing the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not at all dealt the issues in detail and not passed a speaking order at all, but only confirmed the action of the AO, which in our opinion, is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is a erroneous approach. It is a settled law that even an administrative order has to be speaking one. 6.1 In this regard we draw support from Hon'ble Apex Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version