Prakash Bapurao Patil, Pandharpur V. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax- 4, Pune

ITA 348/PUN/2021

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Prakash Bapurao Patil against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-4, which was passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal contested the setting aside of a completed proceeding by the Pr.CIT. The assessee argued that the Pr.CIT erred in initiating proceedings under section 263, especially after the Assessing Officer had already initiated proceedings under section 147 and passed an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. The assessee's representative highlighted the lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard, as the notice was allegedly not served, preventing attendance at the Pr.CIT's hearings. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present his case and thus remanded the matter back to the Pr.CIT for a fresh decision after a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134315 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.348/PUN/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Prakash Bapurao Patil, A/P Tungat Taluka, Pandharpur, Taluka Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. PAN: BFVPP 7939 E V s The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune -4. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod Shingte – AR Revenue by Shri Rajiv Kumar – DR Date of hearing 23/12/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/01/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-4 dated 31.03.2021 passed under section 263 of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and the circumstances in the case and in law Learned PCIT, Pune - 4 erred in passing order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby, erred in setting aside a completed proceeding for A.Y.2011-12. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances in the case and in law Learned PCIT, Pune-4 erred in initiating proceedings under section 263 especially in view of the fact that Assessing Officer has ITA No.348/PUN/2022 Prakash Bapurao Patil [A] 2 initiated proceedings under section 147 and after due consideration of appellant’s submission passed order u/s 143(3) r. w. s. 147, having form such a view by learned AO, same cannot be replaced by Ld. PCIT, Pune -4 by his view. Therefore, the entire action is beyond the scope of provisions of section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1963. Your appellant craves for to add, alter, amend, modify, delete all above or any grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.” 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that the ld.Pr.CIT has failed to provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld.AR read out the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT to demonstrate that nothing has been mentioned about the assessee’s submission on the issue. The ld.AR pointed out from para 3 of the ld.Pr.CIT’s order that the notice was not served on the assessee, hence, assessee could not attend before the ld.Pr.CIT. 3. The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the ld.Pr.CIT. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We specifically asked the ld.DR to demonstrate that assessee had attended the hearings before the ld.Pr.CIT either personally or through ld.AR. However, the ld.DR could not file any document to prove that assessee had attended hearings before the ld.Pr.CIT either ITA No.348/PUN/2022 Prakash Bapurao Patil [A] 3 personally or through ld.AR. In this background on the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to set-aside the order under section 263 of the Act to the file of the ld.Pr.CIT for denovo adjudication after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 th January, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 27 th Jan, 2023/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.