PRASHANT BHARATKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1389/AHD/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Prashant Bharatkumar Shah against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal ex-parte. The primary contention was that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) had completed the assessment without providing a copy of the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment, which is mandatory as per the Supreme Court's directive in GKN Driveshaft (I) Ltd Vs ITO. Additionally, the assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without proper hearing and that the additions made to his income under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act were arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard and thus remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474050 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshaft (I) Ltd Vs ITO 259 ITR 19(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P. SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: S ATISH SOLANKI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(2); 250; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1389/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Prashant Bharatkumar Shah, 6, 4th Floor, Ellora Commercial Center, Near GPO, Salapose Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat PAN No. AKUPS 3802 L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (1)(2)(3), Ahmedabad (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Satish Solanki, AR Respondent by: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR Date of Hearing 12.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as \"CIT(A)\" for short), dated 24.05.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and failed to appreciate the fact that AO proceeded to complete the assessment without providing copy of reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment to the assessee. This was mandatory as directed ITA No. 1389/Ahd/2024 Prashant Bharatkumar Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year – 2015-16 - 2– by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (I) Ltd Vs ITO 259 ITR 19(SC). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed before him ex-parte without granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the fact that the AO has arbitrarily made addition of Rs. 1,35,28,150/- u/s.69 to the total income of the assessee. No details of the transactions or the evidences on the basis of which such addition was made is shared with the assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO has passed the assessment order without issue of the notice u/s. 143(2) of the IT Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by not appreciating the fact that the AO passed the order without dealing with submissions made by the assessee online from time to time. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirming the additions made by the AO under Section 69 of the Income tax Act.” 3. Notice in this case has been issued by the ld. CIT(A) on 29.07.2022 and 17.05.2024 to furnish the details by 16.08.2022 and 24.05.2024 respectively. The assessee has not furnished any details in response to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order dismissing the appeal of the assessee on 24.05.2024. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the order has been passed without granting proper opportunity. We find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) has been passed on the due date of filing of the details by the assessee, and also that the assessee has not filed any details before the ld. CIT(A). ITA No. 1389/Ahd/2024 Prashant Bharatkumar Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year – 2015-16 - 3– 5. However, keeping in view the entire facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we feel it is a fit case to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall not misuse the opportunity given by the Tribunal to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A) and shall comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) from time to time without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 12.11.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 12/11/2024 btk आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ\rेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b\tथ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड\u001f फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "