2020 (5) TMI 353 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Validity of reason to believe - as alleged absence of any valid approval obtained under section 151 - CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. The CIT(A) has not at all discussed the merit of the case. It will be appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Thus, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and completion of assessment
2. Fair opportunity of being heard to the appellant
3. Addition of unexplained deposits in the bank account

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and completion of assessment:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by CIT(A)-Hisar for Assessment Year 2009-10. The appellant challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and completion of assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act, claiming they were without jurisdiction. The appellant argued that there was no specific relevant, reliable, and tangible material to form a "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. It was contended that the reasons were recorded mechanically without the application of mind, making them invalid. Additionally, the absence of valid approval under section 151 of the Act was highlighted, rendering the initiation of proceedings and assessment invalid. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, ensuring the principles of natural justice were followed.

2. Fair opportunity of being heard to the appellant:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without granting a fair opportunity of being heard. It was argued that there was a reasonable cause for the appellant's non-appearance on the dates fixed for the hearing. The tribunal acknowledged the lack of proper consideration by the CIT(A) and directed the matter to be remanded back for a fresh adjudication on merit, emphasizing the importance of providing the appellant with a meaningful opportunity to present their case.

3. Addition of unexplained deposits in the bank account:
The appellant contested the addition of ?12,00,000 representing alleged unexplained deposits in the bank account. The tribunal, while remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, did not delve into the specifics of this issue. However, the tribunal's decision to partially allow the appeal for statistical purposes implied a reconsideration of the addition made by the assessing officer and sustained by the CIT(A), indicating a possibility of the addition being deleted upon further review.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and providing a fair opportunity to the appellant, signifies a procedural victory for the appellant in this case.