Mohd. Yasir Arafat Quraishi, Kanpur V. ITO, Ward-2(4), Kushinagar, Kushinagar

ITA 169/LKW/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Mohd. Yasir Arafat Quraishi, the appellant, contesting an order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant challenged the appellate order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which sustained the Assessing Officer's order. The main issues revolved around the validity of notices issued under sections 143(2) and 144, the jurisdiction of the officers, and the principles of natural justice concerning the opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal found agreement between both parties on the need for a fresh assessment, leading to the setting aside of the previous order and a directive for a new assessment process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113237 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 250; 143(2); 69A

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No.169/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.169/Lkw/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohd. Yasir Arafat Quraishi, Arafat House, Colonelganj, Kanpur. PAN:AACPQ2045D Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Kushinagar. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) Appeal vide I.T.A. No.169/Lkw/2022 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 30/07/2022 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1044360889(1) of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [learned “CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the learned Assessing Officer's Order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 22/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 22/05/2023 I.T.A. No.169/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2017-18 2 2. The notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi failed to appreciate, that the officer having jurisdiction, has issued a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the issuing of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(5), Deoria, and thus there is no assumption of jurisdiction to pass the order under section 144 and the order passed under section 144 of the income Tax Act, 1961 was required to be quashed, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The authorities below failed to appreciate that it is settled position of law that ‘consent does not confer jurisdiction' on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi failed to appreciate that the Ground no. 1 raised was a pure legal ground and the same ought to have adjudicated, by calling for records and refusing to adjudicate the ground was patently erroneous, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. That the addition was erroneous on the basis of the fact that the appellant did not get the opportunity of being heard and hence the order is against the natural justice of law. Therefore, the various reasons given by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and Ld. Assessing Officer i.e. ITO, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar to uphold the ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and addition of Rs.85,20,500/- to the income of the appellant on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) has erred in law in not considering grounds of appeal & statement of facts furnished alongwith appeal memo in Form No. - 35 & wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.85,20,500/- made in the case of I.T.A. No.169/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2017-18 3 the appellant being cash deposited in bank account during demonetization period. The cash has been deposited during demonetization period in the bank current account number - 20470429502 with Allahabad bank of M/s. Greater Arafat Tanners Private Limited & no cash deposited has been in the bank account of assessee. 8. Because various adverse observations and allegations made by the lower authorities are contrary to the facts, material & evidences available on record. 9. Because the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is against the principle of natural justice erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 10. Because the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) & 272A(l)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which initiation is bad in law and be deleted.” (B) At the time of hearing before us, the learned A.R. for assessee submitted that the assessee did not get reasonable opportunity either before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings or before the learned CIT(A) during appellate proceedings in the office of the learned CIT(A). He submitted that the impugned appellate order dated 30/07/2022 of learned CIT(A) should be set aside and the Assessing Officer should be directed to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Learned Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr.D.R.” for short) for the Revenue did not express any objection to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned A.R. of the assessee. In view of the foregoing and as representatives of both the sides are in agreement with this; in the specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 30/07/2022 of learned CIT(A) and we restore all the I.T.A. No.169/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2017-18 4 issues in dispute in the present appeal before us to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All the grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions. (C) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 22/05/2023) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:22/05/2023 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Assistant Registrar