2019 (9) TMI 1560 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of the assessment u/s 153A - HELD THAT - As noticed that the assessee in his written submissions dated 22.08.2016 stated that the search team had confronted the assessee with unauthentic document. In the present case, it is not clear as to whether any au then tic document was confronted to the assessee or not. AO so mentioned that a reference was made on 27.11.2012 but it is not clear for which purpose the said reference was made . So in the absence of clear facts on record, this issue is also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to be adjudicated a fresh, in accordance with law after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee . Since, the verbatim of the order, in the present case is also same, and in the absence of any change in the material facts, we hereby remand the matter back to the file of the AO to adjudicate a fresh, in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Assessment order validity under section 153A of the Act; contradictory observations in assessment order; remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:

Assessment Order Validity under Section 153A of the Act:
The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2006-07, a Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi had already adjudicated a similar matter. The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer had informed the assessee about the copy of the bank account obtained under DTA. However, there was a contradictory observation in the assessment order regarding the information from the Swiss Banking Authority. Due to the lack of clarity on whether authentic documents were confronted to the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the issue related to the validity of the assessment under section 153A of the Act. The matter was remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Contradictory Observations in Assessment Order:
The Tribunal pointed out the contradictory observations in the assessment order, where the Assessing Officer mentioned a reference made on a specific date but the purpose of the reference was unclear. This lack of clarity led the Tribunal to set aside this issue as well for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a clear opportunity for the assessee to be heard and confronted with relevant documents before reaching a decision.

Remand of the Matter to the Assessing Officer for Fresh Adjudication:
In light of the similar nature of the present case to the earlier adjudicated matter and the absence of any change in material facts, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes, indicating that the decision was primarily based on procedural grounds rather than substantive merits. The Tribunal pronounced the order in open court on a specified date, concluding the judgment.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, the reasons for setting aside certain matters for fresh adjudication, and the procedural aspects involved in the decision-making process.