Shri Amar Chand Borad V. ITO, Ward-I, Sriganganagar

ITA/2/2011

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Amar Chand Borad against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Sriganganagar, concerning an assessment for the year 2001-02. The primary issue arose from the assessee's claim that he was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the assessing officer, which he argued violated the principles of natural justice. The CIT (A) had set aside the original assessment order and remanded the case back to the AO for a re-assessment, ensuring the assessee's right to be heard was honored. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed for lacking substantial legal questions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799905 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: S K VERMA
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income tax appeal; Natural Justice; Opportunity of being heard; Substantial question of law
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT D. B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2/2011 SHRI AMAR CHAND BORAD V. ITO, WARD-I, SRIGANGANAGAR. DATE OF ORDER ::: 1 4/02/2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. S.K.Verma for Mr. Suresh Ojha, for Appellant (s). BY THE COURT: This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order passed by the Tribunal in appeal No.ITA/411/JU/2008 arising out of an assessment year, 2001-02. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal as, in our opinion, it does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The perusal of the impugned order quoted below would go to show that it is, in fact, in appellant's (assessee's) favour :- “13. We have heard the parties and have carefully perused the material on record with reference to sub-rule (6) of Rule 18 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and precedents cited at bar. The finding of fact reached by the Ld. CIT (A) that the assessing officer has not provided proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, is not under challenge by either of the parties before us, even though the assessee has filed a self serving affidavit without supporting the same with any documentary evidence as all the facts resulting into payment of Rs.13.00 lacs 2 made by him and making of agreement were fully in his knowledge. There being finding of fact that the assessee has been deprived of the opportunity of being heard, the right course of action for the Ld. CIT (A) was to set aside the order of assessing authority and remitted the matter back to the assessing authority to cure the procedural lapse from the stage where the assessee was deprived of such opportunity of being heard. That being so, he had no good basis or reason to say that the addition has been made on suspicion and surmises. In view of the fact that principles of natural justice have been violated for the reason that the assessee is deprived of benefit of opportunity of being heard, we deem it proper to set aside the decision of Ld. CIT (A) for making it denovo by the assessing authority so that the assessee is provided opportunity of being heard before a decision in accordance with law is taken by him on the merits of the grounds in appeal.” When the Tribunal has set aside the order of CIT (A) and has remanded the case to the AO, we fail to appreciate as to why this appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Tribunal. We, however, make it clear that since the matter is remitted to the AO for denovo inquiry and by affording an opportunity to the assessee which was not earlier granted which led to passing of the impugned order, the AO shall afford adequate opportunity to the assessee and then would pass appropriate assessment order in accordance with law. Subject to aforesaid, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine involving no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260 A ibid. scd (C. M. TOTLA), J. (A . M. SAPRE), J. "