2010 (1) TMI 963 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-grant of proper opportunity to the assessee by the Assessing Officer.
2. Sustenance of additions made by the Assessing Officer.
3. Charging of interest under section 234B.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The main grievance of the assessee was regarding the non-grant of a proper opportunity by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had allowed the assessee various opportunities for hearings, but the assessee failed to furnish complete details and evidence required to support their case. The Assessing Officer provided multiple dates for hearings, but the necessary information was not submitted by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the contention that no proper opportunity was given to the assessee, stating that despite several chances, the assessee did not provide the required details. However, the Tribunal noted that any submission or evidence, even if provided on the last date of the hearing, should be considered before passing the assessment order. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in refusing to accept the latest submission of the assessee before passing the assessment order. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the assessment to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to reframe the assessment in accordance with the law.

Issue 2: The assessee challenged the sustenance of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the additions raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal, as the assessment was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the Assessing Officer should re-examine the additions as per the directions given by the Tribunal.

Issue 3: Ground No. 8 raised by the assessee was regarding the charging of interest under section 234B. However, the judgment did not provide specific details or analysis related to this ground, and it was not discussed in the detailed analysis of the judgment.

In summary, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes, directing the restoration of the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to reframe the assessment in accordance with the law. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the additions raised by the assessee, as they would be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer based on the directions given by the Tribunal.