The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the denial of a fair hearing.
Sanjeev Mittal,the appellant-assessee,encountered a significant legal issue following a search and seizure operation conducted under Section 132 of the Act on December 29, 2017. This operation took place at his residence, where officials discovered old demonetized currency amounting to ₹25 crore.
Get a Copy of GST Question Compendium with 500 Real World Queries, Click Here
Further searches were executed on December 6, 2018, at another residence and the main office in Meerut. A notice under Section 153A of the Act was subsequently issued, but the assessee did not comply by filing a return.
The AO later issued notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, along with a questionnaire, and eventually completed the assessment, determining the total income to be ₹61,99,91,782 under Section 144 of the Act.
The assessee raised multiple contentions regarding the denial of a reasonable, adequate, and effective opportunity to be heard before both the AO and the CIT(A). He claimed that, despite several reminders, a set of loose papers critical to his defense was not provided, which severely limited his ability to respond to the AO’s inquiries.
Get a Copy of GST Question Compendium with 500 Real World Queries, Click Here
Upon reviewing the impugned order dated May 18, 2022, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a lack of prosecution, simply incorporating the AO’s order without addressing the substantive grounds raised by the assessee. The appellant argued that the AO disregarded his submissions and did not provide a fair opportunity for him to present additional details.
The tribunal decided to adjudicate the appeal on its merits. It directed the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, stressing the need for the AO to provide the necessary documents and allow the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The two member bench comprising Sudhir Pareek ( Judicial Member ) and S Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member ) set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case, noting that proper verification of the additions made was crucial.
In conclusion the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
