TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessee's Appeals Allowed for Fresh Hearing Emphasizing Fair Proceedings</h1> <h3>Harendra Singh Dhillon, Naagaon Versus ITO-1, Ayakar Bhawan, Uttarakhand</h3> Harendra Singh Dhillon, Naagaon Versus ITO-1, Ayakar Bhawan, Uttarakhand - TMI Issues involved: The appeals filed by the assessee against three separate orders passed by the CIT (A) dated 16th December, 2011 for Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08, involving the addition of undisclosed income.Assessment Year 2005-06:- The CIT (A) confirmed the addition of undisclosed income of Rs. 5,68,800.00.- The appellant contended that the addition was made without proper consideration of facts and practicality of the case.- The appellant argued that the disallowance was sustained without sufficient reason or material.- The appellant claimed that the order was legally flawed, not based on facts, and against principles of natural justice.- The appellant sought leave to modify grounds of appeal if necessary.Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007-08:- The figures for these years were Rs. 68,50,000/- and Rs. 69,60,000/- respectively.Key Details:- The assessment orders were passed under Section 144 of the Act due to the assessee's failure to appear before the AO.- Deposits in a bank account were treated as unexplained income, except for agricultural income admitted by the assessee.- The CIT (A) upheld the additions made by the AO after considering additional evidences and a remand report.- The assessee, represented by the AR, argued for another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.- The AR requested the matter be restored to the CIT (A) for a fair hearing and submission of a revised remand report.- The DR opposed granting further opportunities to the assessee, citing that sufficient chances had already been provided.- The ITAT considered the submissions and directed the matter to be remitted to the CIT (A) for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need for a reasonable and sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present their case.- The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with no opinion expressed on the merits of the additions upheld by the CIT (A).This judgment highlights the importance of providing adequate opportunities for parties to present their case and the need for fair and just proceedings in tax matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
