2018 (10) TMI 288 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - unexplained investment u/s 69 - Held that - The grievance of the AR of the assessee is that the CIT(A) without appreciating or examining the documents filed before him in the proper perspective, upheld the action of the AO. AR, the CIT(A) ought to have remitted the matter back to the AO or ought to have called for a remand report from AO. Therefore,to meet the ends of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to re-do the assessment de-novo after examining the documents as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 - Validity of notice under section 282 of the Income Tax Act - Service of notice under section 148 - Opportunity for defense before the assessing officer - Consideration of submissions by CIT(A) - Remand report from AO - Documents submitted by the assessee - Failure to consider documents by CIT(A) - Remand of the matter back to AO for de-novo assessment.

Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment Order: The appeal challenged the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, contending that it was contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of the law. The contention was that the assessee was not served with a proper notice as required under section 282 of the Act, which deprived the assessee of presenting their case before the assessing officer.

2. Service of Notice under Section 148: The appeal raised concerns regarding the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. It was argued that there was no valid service of notice, and therefore, the subsequent proceedings and the order passed under section 147 were challenged to be quashed.

3. Opportunity for Defense: The appeal highlighted the failure of the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for the assessee to defend their case adequately. It was contended that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO to assess the merits of the case presented by the assessee, which was not done.

4. Consideration of Submissions: The appeal criticized the CIT(A) for not considering the submissions made on the merits of the case. The contention was that the CIT(A) summarily dismissed the grounds without proper discussion, which was deemed inadequate.

5. Remand of the Matter: The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, found merit in the arguments presented by the assessee. The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) did not properly examine the documents submitted by the assessee and upheld the action of the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the AO for a de-novo assessment, providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

6. Conclusion: Ultimately, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of due process and fair consideration of evidence in tax assessments. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure justice by directing a fresh assessment in light of the documents submitted by the assessee.

← Previous Next →