Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Manoj Kumar Bansal,211, New Delhi House,27, Barakhamba Road,New Delhi. Vs. ACIT (OSD), Ward-37(1), New Delhi.
November, 19th 2015
         IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
            DELHI BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI
     BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                          ITA No.1920/Del/2015
                         Assessment Year : 2001-02

Manoj Kumar Bansal,                   Vs.    ACIT (OSD),
211, New Delhi House,                        Ward-37(1),
27, Barakhamba Road,                         New Delhi.
New Delhi.

PAN: AAHPB3134F

     (Appellant)                               (Respondent)

              Assessee By        :    Shri R.C. Raj, Advocate
              Department By      :    Shri M.K. Jain, Sr. DR

           Date of Hearing              :    23.10.2015
           Date of Pronouncement        :    17.11.2015

                                     ORDER
       This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the

CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi, dated 21.01.2015 for assessment year 2001-02.

2.     After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on

record, I hold as follows.
                                                              ITA No.1920/Del/2015


3.   I first dispose of ground No.1, which reads as follows:-

      "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in
      law, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in:-
      a) Holding that the Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was
      validly served on the appellant.

      b) Holding that the objection for re-opening of the assessment was
      disposed of by the ld. Assessing Officer.

      c) Holding that re-opening of the assessment is valid which is
      otherwise bad in law and without jurisdiction.

      d) Holding that the copy of adverse material used against the
      assessee was provided to the assessee."







4.   On the issue of service of notice, the ld.CIT(A) at para 5.2 states

that the assessee has responded to the notice issued u/s 148, vide his letter

dated 23.10.2008 and, hence, there is no valid ground to state that notice

u/s 148 has not been served. In my view, such plea cannot be taken. The

AO has evaded the issue whether the notice u/s 148 was served or not.

The assessee has been contending all along that no notice was served on

it. The contention was raised before the ld. AO also. The jurisdictional

High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ishan Holdings Ltd. (2009) TIOL 495

(Del) and in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, 311 ITR 235, has

decided in favour of the assessee.        Thus, this assessment has to be
                                      2
                                                                 ITA No.1920/Del/2015


annulled as without jurisdiction on the sole ground of non-service of

notice u/s 148 of the Act on the assessee. Even otherwise, admittedly, the

assessee has filed his objections for re-opening of assessment. The AO

has not disposed of these objections. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in

the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Tupperware India Pvt.

Ltd., in ITA No.415/2015, vide para No.6, has held as follows:-

     "6. The Court is of the considered view that after having correctly
     understood the decision of the Supreme Court in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India)
     Ltd. (supra) as mandatorily requiring the AO to comply with the procedure
     laid down therein and to dispose of the objections to the reopening order with
     a speaking order, the CIT(A) committed an error in not quashing the
     reopening order and the consequent assessment."








5.   Respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court decision, we

hold the assessment is bad in law.

6.    In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

     The order pronounced in the open court on 17.11.2015.
                                                              Sd/-


                                                 [J.SUDHAKAR REDDY]
                                                ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated, 17th November, 2015.

dk
                                        3
                                ITA No.1920/Del/2015




Copy forwarded to:

  1.   Appellant
  2.   Respondent
  3.   CIT
  4.   CIT (A)
  5.   DR, ITAT
                         AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.




                     4

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting