2020 (2) TMI 208 - AT - Income Tax

Commissioner's order set aside for reassessment due to legal flaws. Assessee granted fair opportunity. Appeal allowed for remand.

The Tribunal found the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A))'s order to be non-speaking and unsustainable in law. The impugned order was set ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - no sufficient opportunity had been given and no cross examination was conducted - non speaking order of CIT-A - CIT(A) justification in concurring with the AO in confirming the addition without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing of the appellant - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has disposed of the legal grounds regarding reopening u/s. 148 of the Act as well as given the relief of ₹ 10 lacs and upheld the balance addition of ₹ 9.75 lacs, I am of the view that the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) by deleting the addition of ₹ 10 lacs and sustaining the addition of ₹ 9.75 lacs is non-speaking one, which is not acceptable in the eyes of law. Keeping in view of the facts of the present case and the arguments advanced by both the parties as well as documentary evidences filed by the assessee, the issues in dispute require a thorough consideration and adjudication on the basis of documentary evidences filed by the assessee and the case laws on the legal issue by the Ld. CIT(A) as the non-speaking order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.2. Justification of the addition of Rs. 9,75,000 to the assessee's income without sufficient opportunity for hearing.3. Adequacy of the opportunity provided to the assessee during the assessment and remand proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148:The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) in issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that it was without jurisdiction and thus invalid. The AO initiated assessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing the notice on 25.03.2013. The assessee's representative responded by stating that the return filed on 01.08.2000 should be treated as a response to this notice. The AO subsequently issued multiple notices under Sections 143(2)/142, but the assessee did not comply until the final notice. The AO based the reassessment on the sale of land and discrepancies in the valuation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's action, stating that the reopening was based on valid grounds, referencing the Kerala High Court's decision in M/s Palakkad Dist. Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs Addl. CIT. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and required a thorough reconsideration.2. Justification of the Addition of Rs. 9,75,000:The AO added Rs. 9,75,000 to the assessee's income, citing unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee argued that these funds were from the sale of disputed agricultural land. The AO referred the matter to the Assistant Valuation Officer (AVO), who confirmed the fair market value as Rs. 63,00,000, consistent with the sale deed. Despite this, the AO found discrepancies in the cash deposits and added Rs. 19,75,000 to the income, which was later reduced by the CIT(A) to Rs. 9,75,000. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without affording sufficient hearing opportunities, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s findings were non-speaking and required a detailed examination.3. Adequacy of Opportunity Provided:The assessee argued that sufficient opportunity for hearing was not provided during the assessment and remand proceedings. The AO issued multiple notices, but the assessee failed to comply initially. During the remand proceedings, the AO accepted the explanation for Rs. 10,00,000 but not for the remaining Rs. 9,75,000. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's claim of insufficient opportunity, stating that ample opportunities were provided. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked detailed reasoning and required a comprehensive review.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and not sustainable in law. It set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the issues afresh, providing adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded for a thorough re-evaluation.Order Pronounced:The order was pronounced on 03.02.2020.