2022 (10) TMI 446 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition invoking the provisions of section 50C - Whether there is a provision in the Act available to the CIT(A) to make a reference to the D.V.O.? - HELD THAT - We find that it is a fact that on 28/03/2013, the notice u/s 148 was issued and then on 21/03/2014, notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Between the period 22/03/2014 to 27/03/2014 the assessee was out of station and therefore, the case could not be explained to the Assessing Officer. On 29/03/2014 itself the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Before learned CIT(A), the assessee filed the valuation report but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee did not file the valuation report before Assessing Officer nor did he request the Ao to obtain report from D.V.O. CIT(A) further held that there is no provision in the Act available to the CIT(A) to make a reference to the D.V.O. and hence he dismissed the appeal. We find that the assessee did not get proper opportunity to explain his case before the authorities below and since the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 144 therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit back the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.- Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against addition under section 50C of the Act
2. Allegation of lack of reasonable opportunity of being heard
3. Reopening of the case under section 147 of the Act
4. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) based on valuation report

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 50C of the Act. The appellant also raised a ground asserting that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appellant contended that the case was reopened under section 147 of the Act, and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 without allowing sufficient opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that after receiving a notice for reopening the case, the Assessing Officer did not take any action until a later date when the appellant's advocate appeared. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment without giving the appellant a fair chance to be heard. The appellant emphasized the unavailability of a proper opportunity to present their case before the authorities below, leading to a dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case.

3. The Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities but acknowledged that the merits of the case were not examined by either party. Consequently, it was agreed that the case should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reevaluation.

4. The Tribunal observed the sequence of events, noting that the appellant was out of station during a crucial period when the case could not be explained to the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the appellant's failure to submit the valuation report to the Assessing Officer or request a report from the D.V.O. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not afforded a proper opportunity to present their case, leading to the decision to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after providing a fair and reasonable opportunity for the appellant to be heard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case before the authorities.