2013 (12) TMI 319 - HC - Income Tax

High Court overturns Tribunal's judgment on income tax appeal, citing procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice.

Manvendra Singh Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment in an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2004-05. The Court found that ... Cost of improvement - Held that:- Proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee to raise the objection pertaining to the report submitted by the D.V.O. It is violation of the principle of natural justice - The A.O. without providing proper opportunity of hearing, passed the assessment order in a hurried manner on the same day - This aspect was not examined either by the first Appellate Authority or by the Tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the Tribunal's judgment for assessment years 2004-05. Substantial questions of law regarding fair market value and cost improvement. Violation of natural justice in assessing fair market value.Analysis:The appeals were filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act challenging the Tribunal's judgment on substantial questions of law. The first issue raised was whether the Tribunal rightly upheld the assessing authority's action in determining the fair market value based on a D.V.O. report, denying sufficient opportunity to challenge the report, and adopting a value contrary to the sale consideration. The second issue was whether the Tribunal rightly upheld the assessing authority's decision in disallowing the claim of cost improvement despite the submission of un-rebutted affidavits by the applicant. The A.O. invoked Section 50C(1) and referred the matter to the D.V.O. to assess the property's fair market value, leading to an addition of Rs.18.00 lakhs, which was confirmed by the authorities. However, it was argued that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to challenge the D.V.O.'s report, violating the principle of natural justice.The High Court observed that the A.O. did not provide a fair opportunity for the assessee to raise objections regarding the D.V.O.'s report, rushing the assessment order on the same day without due process. This lack of proper hearing and violation of natural justice were not addressed by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the assessee. The first substantial question of law was decided in favor of the assessee, while the second question was not addressed due to the remand.Given the age of the matter, the Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the decision within three months. As a result, all appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, indicating a successful challenge to the Tribunal's judgment based on procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice.