2022 (4) TMI 156 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - submission of the assessee that the Ld. Pr. CIT has not given any opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim - HELD THAT - Assessee did not appear before the Ld. Pr. CIT to substantiate his case. The main contention of the assessee is that due to COVID pandemic the assessee or his counsel could not appear before the Ld. Pr. CIT and the non appearance was neither willful negligence nor lapse on the part of the assessee. The assessee pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld. Pr. CIT. After considering the COVID pandemic situation we find force in the argument of the assessee and we are of the view that it is a fit case to grant one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Ld. Pr. CIT - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2016-17.
2. Lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard during the revisional proceedings.
3. Validity of the revisional proceedings initiated by the Principal Commissioner.
4. Allegations of errors in the assessment order and prejudicial impact on revenue.
5. Assessment order passed without proper enquiry or verification.
6. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the assessee's ability to attend proceedings.
7. Granting of one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard before the Principal Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) for the Assessment Year 2016-17 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Principal Commissioner initiated proceedings as the assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to lack of enquiry or verification.

2. The assessee raised concerns about not being given an opportunity to be heard during the revisional proceedings. The grounds included objections to the initiation of proceedings and the consequential final order, citing lack of opportunity as invalidating the proceedings.

3. The validity of the revisional proceedings was questioned by the assessee, contending that the show cause notice and subsequent actions were not in accordance with the requirements of section 263 of the Act. The assessee argued that the points raised were not errors prejudicial to revenue.

4. The assessee disputed the allegations of errors in the assessment order, claiming that they were based on speculation rather than factual or legal errors. It was argued that the order was not erroneous, and no prejudice was caused to the revenue.

5. The assessment order was passed without proper enquiry or verification, leading to the initiation of revisional proceedings. The assessee highlighted that the order may have been brief, but that alone was not sufficient to label it as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

6. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the assessee or their counsel could not attend before the Principal Commissioner, leading to a lack of appearance to substantiate their case. The assessee requested one more opportunity to be heard, attributing the non-appearance to pandemic-related challenges.

7. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to be heard before the Principal Commissioner, considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the assessee's ability to participate in the proceedings. The order under section 263 was set aside for fresh consideration after providing the necessary opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the assessee to be heard in revisional proceedings, especially considering exceptional circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic.

← Previous Next →