2017 (3) TMI 1474 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - proper opportunity of being heard was not granted - issues relating to 40 A (2) (b) in respect of one of the parties was not examined by the assessing officer - Held that - Commissioner of income tax in his order has duly noted that on several occasion notices were issued but nobody attended. Before us also despite several notices nobody has attended. Hence we do not find any cogency in this aspect of assessee submission that proper opportunity of being heard was not granted. As regards the merits of the order passed we find that learned Commissioner of income tax has raised relevant issues on which the assessing officer should have made enquiries, which are not emanating from the assessment order. Hence it was incumbent upon the assessee to prove that the assessing officer has duly examined these aspects. In absence of any responses from the assessee in our considered opinion there is no infirmity in the direction of learned Commissioner of income tax to the assessing officer to examine the issues denovo. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act without granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard.
2. Validity of the revision order under section 263 without any impropriety in the assessment order.
3. Basis of the revision order under section 263 relying on doubt, surmises, and conjectures.
4. Allegation of relevant facts not being appreciated by the CIT in the revision order.
5. Passing of the revision order under section 263 on flimsy and whimsical grounds.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was directed against the order of the Ld. CIT passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee challenged the CIT's order for not providing an opportunity to be heard and for allegedly not considering relevant facts. The CIT concluded that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest due to deficiencies in examining various issues, prompting a direction to redo the assessment after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

2. The ITAT noted that despite multiple notices, the assessee did not appear before them or the CIT. The ITAT found no merit in the argument that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard since notices were issued on several occasions. The ITAT upheld the CIT's order, stating that the CIT raised pertinent issues that the assessing officer should have investigated but were not addressed in the assessment order. The ITAT emphasized that it was the assessee's responsibility to prove that these aspects were duly examined by the assessing officer, which was not done in this case.

3. The ITAT concluded that there was no infirmity in the CIT's direction to the assessing officer to reexamine the issues de novo, given the lack of responses from the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the CIT's order under section 263, dismissing the appeal by the assessee. The decision was pronounced in the Open Court on 03.03.2017.