Suksham Finlease & Investment P.Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi

ITA 724/DEL/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Suksham Finlease & Investment P. Ltd., the appellant, contesting the reassessment order for the Assessment Year 2010-11, which included an addition of Rs. 1,02,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the reassessment was void ab initio, arbitrary, and perverse, claiming it was based on unverified information from other sources. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision without providing adequate opportunity for the appellant to be heard, which the appellant contended violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn indicates that the appellant may have decided not to pursue the matter further, possibly after reaching a settlement or reassessing the viability of continuing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121204 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2020
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshaft
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Opportunity of cross examination

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.724/Del/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Suksham Finlease & Investment P. Ltd. 474-475, Agarwal Millenium Tower-2, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi PAN No.AABCS0125J Vs ITO Ward- 24 (3) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Ms. Monika Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr DR Date of hearing: 12/04/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12/04/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-25, New Delhi dated 04.12.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2010-11. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 2 1. That the reassessment order dated 29.12.2017 passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act of the Assessing Officer is void ab intio, bad in law, arbitrary and is perverse and the Ld. CIT (Appeal) without giving proper opportunity of being heard, is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making an impugned addition for Rs. 1,02,00,000/- U/s. 68 upon the assessee. 2. That the reopening in the instant case is invalid as it is defective and made simply relying upon information received by Ld. A.O. from other sources without its independent verification / examination. 3. That the reassessment order is void ab intio as the same is not passed as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshaft. 4. The action of Ld. CIT (Appeal) is against the principles of natural justice in as much as passing the impugned appeal order without granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant and more so where the appellant had itself prayed for an opportunity under the circumstances of the case. It is gross negligence on the part of Ld. CIT (Appeals) in passing an appeal order without fully and completely looking at the facts on records before him on behalf of the appellant and calling to confirm the addition. 5. The action of Ld. CIT (Appeal) is against the principles of law in as much as dismissing the appeal of the assessee without affording it 3 to controvert the findings of the investigation report or other material as relied upon by the Ld. A.O. without granting any opportunity to the assessee to deal with the same. Ld. A.O. failed to provide an opportunity of cross examination of any person on whose statements investigation report was drawn without any reference to the case of the assessee or to provide a copy of the investigation reports and other material despite several specific requests made on behalf of the assessee and Ld. CIT (Appeals) had erred in law in not holding the action of Ld. A.O. as illegal and void-ab-initio. 6. That the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making an additions of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- U/s. 68 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of commission paid by the Appellant. Ld. CIT(Appeals) had further erred in law in relying upon incorrect facts narrated in the impugned assessment order, which had been duly opposed and controverted by the assessee, without granting any opportunity of cross examination or copy of investigation report and other material. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, delete modify or vary any of the grounds of appeal at any time during the pendency of the appeal or at the time of hearing. 3. The Counsel for the assessee moved the following application :- 4 3. Noting the contents of the application the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5 4. Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 12.04.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [C.N. PRASAD] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:12.04.2023 *Neha* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CITi 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar ITAT, New Delhi