Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791

B.P.Mundra

मानवता से काम करें मन के सारे काम अपने आप हो जायेंगे

इस महीने के इम्पोर्टेंट काम
  • Home
  • GST
  • Cases Income tax
  • MCA
  • Subsidy
  • TDS
  • About Us
  • contact us
  • Login
    • Admin Login
    • Staff Login
    • User Login
  • Loan
  • Apply for job
  • Click Here
  • HOW TO
  • To file ITR for AY 2020-21 kindly give details (and also evidence if yes) of following
  • Categories
    • Articles
    • Authority
    • Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
    • client
    • Constitution of India
    • Finance Act 1994
    • formalities to be completed
    • GST
    • Happiness
    • HOW TO
    • Income Tax
    • Indian Evidence Act 1872
    • Job Application
    • MCA
    • Office system
    • Papers required for filing
    • Principal of mutuality
    • rajasthan public trust
    • Smile
    • Subsidy
    • work report

B.P.MUNDRA

Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791


Non-compliance to summons u/s. 131 is not one of the conditions for invoking the best judgment

B.P.Mundra > Income Tax > Cases Income tax > 144 > Non-compliance to summons u/s. 131 is not one of the conditions for invoking the best judgment

admin November 15, 2019

144, Cases Income tax

144, best judgement assessment

 39 total views

HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL on Jun 7, 2017 held that for invoking the provisions of Section 144, there should be non-compliance, as provided u/s. 144(1). There should be non- compliance to the notices u/s. 142(1) or 143(2) or fails to make the return as provided. Non-compliance to summons u/s. 131 is not one of the conditions for invoking the best judgment assessment. Moreover, assessee was not given any time to respond as AO completed the assessment even before the posting date. In these circumstances, invoking the provisions u/s. 144 does not arise. Not only that, even before invoking the provisions u/s. 144, AO shall, after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the assessment. Therefore, section mandates that assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard even to invoke the provisions of section 144. Nothing was done by the AO so as to complete the assessment under the provisions of Section 144. Ld.CIT(A) in Tribunal opinion has not considered the provisions of Section 144, but went on to confirm the order stating that there was a non-compliance to notice u/s. 142(1). As seen from the order of the AO, 142(1) notice was issued on the very first occasion but later on assessee has complied with the notices. There seems to be no penalty also levied for non-compliance to various notices. In these circumstances, Tribunal is of the opinion that Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the order u/s. 144. Considering the facts of the case and submission that assessee has maintained books of account and is in a position to substantiate the claims, Tribunal is of the opinion that the orders of the authorities are to be set aside and the assessment is to be restored to the file of AO for fresh examination. Assessee also contends that estimation of income at 5% is not correct in the line of business. AO is directed to consider the profit percentage in the line of business, in case the provisions of Section 144 or 145 are to be invoked in this case. Assessee should be given due opportunity to substantiate the claims. The observations of AO and CIT(A) and allegations of assessee should not prejudice the present or future proceedings. With these observations, grounds


SANJAY KUMAR vs.INCOME TAX OFFICER

HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL

B. RAMAKOTAIAH, AM.
ITA No. 1107/HYD/2016

Jun 7, 2017

(2017) 50 CCH 0146 HydTrib

Full decision is as under:-

1. This is an appeal by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad, dated 31-05-2016. Assessee has raised various grounds questioning the assessment completed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act [Act] as well as estimation of income at 5% with reference to assessee’s line of business.
2. Briefly stated, assessee is in the business of manufacturing and trading of Woven Fabrics. He also undertakes assembling of electrical fans and related job works. Assessee has offered income of Rs. 1,61,360/-. Assessing Officer (AO) by stating that assessee has not responded to various notices, invoked the provisions of Section 144 and estimated the income at 5% of the gross sales taken at Rs. 1,72,63,272/-. In the addition, he also added the sundry income shown in the P&L A/c to an extent of Rs. 10,51,500/-. Assessee took up the matter before the CIT(A) and submitted that AO did not accept the statements, books of account and list of Sundry Debtors etc., and has completed the assessment ex-parte. He also made certain allegations about the conduct of AO in the statement of facts. Ld.CIT(A), however, rejected assessee’s contentions for invoking the provisions of Section 144. With reference to estimation of income at 5% also, he has confirmed the estimation, but excluded the separate addition of job work charges. Assessee is aggrieved on estimation of income at 5% rejecting the books of account.
3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessment order was passed on 21-12-2010, whereas in the body of the order itself AO acknowledges that summons were issued for appearance on 22-12-2010. Further, it was submitted that Ld.CIT(A) did not consider assessee’s explanation and confirmed the estimation. It was submitted that assessee has maintained books of account and estimation of income was not warranted.
4. Ld.DR, however, supported the orders of the authorities.
5. After considering the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the matter is to be restored to the file of AO for fresh examination of the assessment itself. As noticed from the assessment order, the AO has issued notices on 07-07-2010 which was served on 12-07-2010 to appear on 19-07-2010. Since there is no response against that notices were issued on 20-08-2010 for appearance on 09-09-2010. As there seems to be no compliance from assessee, again summons were issued for appearance on 21-09-2010 which were complied with. However, for seeking information, the case was adjourned to 25-10-2010. Even though assessee in the statement of facts before the CIT(A) states that he has produced information, AO refused to acknowledge the same. As seen from the order, the AO acknowledges partly to the extent of production of invoices and bills but not books of account. Thereafter, AO records that since it is a pending assessment, assessment will be completed to the best judgment u/s. 144. Later, AO notes that summons were issued asking assessee to produce books of account [and also invoices, bills and vouchers which were produced earlier] by 22-12-2010. However, assessment was passed on 21-12-2010. Since AO has signed on each page of the order dating 21-12-2010 in his hand writing, the order seems to have been passed, even before the assessee could avail the opportunity given.
6. For invoking the provisions of Section 144, there should be non-compliance, as provided u/s. 144(1). There should be non- compliance to the notices u/s. 142(1) or 143(2) or fails to make the return as provided. Non-compliance to summons u/s. 131 is not one of the conditions for invoking the best judgment assessment. Moreover, assessee was not given any time to respond as AO completed the assessment even before the posting date. In these circumstances, invoking the provisions u/s. 144 does not arise. Not only that, even before invoking the provisions u/s. 144, AO shall, after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the assessment. Therefore, section mandates that assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard even to invoke the provisions of section 144. Nothing was done by the AO so as to complete the assessment under the provisions of Section 144. Ld.CIT(A) in my opinion has not considered the provisions of Section 144, but went on to confirm the order stating that there was a non-compliance to notice u/s. 142(1). As seen from the order of the AO, 142(1) notice was issued on the very first occasion but later on assessee has complied with the notices. There seems to be no penalty also levied for non-compliance to various notices. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the order u/s. 144. Considering the facts of the case and submission that assessee has maintained books of account and is in a position to substantiate the claims, I am of the opinion that the orders of the authorities are to be set aside and the assessment is to be restored to the file of AO for fresh examination. Assessee also contends that estimation of income at 5% is not correct in the line of business. AO is directed to consider the profit percentage in the line of business, in case the provisions of Section 144 or 145 are to be invoked in this case. Assessee should be given due opportunity to substantiate the claims. The observations of AO and CIT(A) and allegations of assessee should not prejudice the present or future proceedings. With these observations, grounds are considered allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.v

Total Page Visits: 103 - Today Page Visits: 1

← Previous post

Next post →

Categories

  • Articles (51)
  • Authority (1)
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) (1)
  • client (54)
  • Constitution of India (1)
  • Finance Act 1994 (0)
  • formalities to be completed (1)
  • GST (56)
  • Happiness (4)
  • HOW TO (40)
  • Income Tax (231)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 (1)
  • invalid notice (1)
  • Job Application (0)
  • MCA (2)
  • Notice 148 (0)
  • Office system (5)
  • Papers required for filing (6)
  • Principal of mutuality (1)
  • rajasthan public trust (2)
  • Smile (7)
  • Subsidy (5)
  • work report (2)
  • Archives

    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019

    Recent Posts

    • Demonetization . Deposit of cash into bank. Before making addition for cash deposit into bank during Demonetization period the Ld. AO has to consider on merits the opening balance for which evidence were produced for allowing credit of cash withdrawal, financials of previous years and audit report if any. Accordingly, the issues raised in this appeal are restored to the files of the Assessing Officer. ITAT- Bangalore in the case of Sri Mohan Ramachandra Basawa, … vs ITO on on 20 January, 2021. Section 68, 69A and 115BBE:
    • Section 68, 69A and 115BBE: Demonetization . Deposit of cash into bank. Where the assessee proves that regular bank deposits of cash from 01.04.2016 to 2.11.2016, as well as after demonetization and also Opening balance are commensurate with the accepted turnover then the addition was not warranted and it is directed to be deleted. ITAT- Gauhati on on 20 January, 2021 in the case of Nurul Islam, Nagaon vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-Nagaon, … A.Y. 2017-18
    • When CIT can pass order u/s 263 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue? ITAT KOLKATA passed the order on 6th Jan 2021 in the case of RUNGTA MINES LTD. vs. PCIT?
    • Consequences of absence of the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act before framing the assessment order? Answer order liable to to be quashed. RAM NIWAS JAIN vs.ITO. ITAT DELHI on 07-Jan-2021. Section 148: Consequences of granting approval by CIT in a mechanical manner by putting only “Yes”. Answer order liable to to be quashed. RAM NIWAS JAIN vs.ITO. ITAT DELHI on 07-Jan-2021.
    • Section 23(1)(c). Can AO make addition on account of notional rent when the property on rent in past is lying vacant in the relevant year and the assessee mention only the reason though no evidence of efforts made was submitted except the evidence that the property was on rent in next financial year.ITAT BOMBAY passed the order on Oct 30, 2019AY 2014-15 EMPIRE CAPITAL PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT. Decision in favour of assessee