2023 (7) TMI 1034 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment - Validity of order u/s 143(1) passed without giving any reasons - Denial of natural justice - no opportunity of hearing being provided to the assessee - HELD THAT - We have perused the entire order u/s 143(1) but could not find any evidence of an opportunity of hearing being provided to the assessee before making the adjustment. DR could not demonstrate that opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee before making the adjustment. In this case the ADIT(CPC) has made the upward changes to the total income by disallowing assessee s claim of expenses without providing any opportunity to the assessee. ADIT(CPC) has not passed a speaking order while making the disallowance. ADIT(CPC) has disallowed the expenses stating that the disallowance may be due to not furnishing the break up of expenditure or error in total. Narration given in the Order u/s 143(1) that the ADIT(CPC)has himself not understood the exact reason for disallowance . We are of the opinion that the disallowance made by the ADIT(CPC) is bad in law and unsustainable. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the said addition.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of natural justice by Revenue Authorities in passing Intimation u/s 143(1)
2. Validity of adjustment made by Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC) without providing an opportunity to the assessee
3. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) on the ground of delay

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of natural justice by Revenue Authorities
The appellant, a doctor, filed a return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs. 25,09,290. The Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC) processed the return u/s 143(1) on 02/06/2016, making an addition of Rs. 12,73,746 to the total income. The appellant raised concerns regarding denial of natural justice, citing lack of reasons for the variation in income and failure to provide an opportunity to challenge the adjustment. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the order under section 143(1) lacked clarity on the reasons for adjustment, and the Department failed to explain the basis for the adjustment, leading to a conclusion that the adjustment was made without proper application of mind. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of providing an opportunity of hearing before making adjustments, as mandated by law.

Issue 2: Validity of adjustment without opportunity to the assessee
The appellant's Authorized Representative argued that the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was unjustified, as the delay in filing the appeal was due to the directions of the authorities. It was contended that no opportunity of hearing was provided during the proceedings under section 143(1), and the adjustment made by the CPC was beyond the scope of section 143(1). The Departmental Representative failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the adjustments. The Tribunal, after examining the relevant provisions of section 143(1) and the absence of evidence of a hearing being provided to the assessee, concluded that the adjustment made by the ADIT(CPC) was unjustified and directed the AO to delete the addition to the total income.

Issue 3: Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)
The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was dismissed on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the delay was a result of following the directions of the authorities. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity to the assessee to present their case and challenge adjustments made to their income. In light of the lack of clarity and justification for the adjustments, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee, highlighting the need for adherence to principles of natural justice and due process in tax matters.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues raised by the appellant, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's findings and conclusions, emphasizing the significance of procedural fairness and legal compliance in tax assessments.