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>Appeal successful due to hearing issues, case remanded for fresh decision. Errors found in proceedings.</h1> <h3>GTV Tech SEZ P. LTD. (Earlier known as Dr. Fresh Healthcare P. Ltd.) Versus ITO, Ward- 1 (4) New Delhi</h3> GTV Tech SEZ P. LTD. (Earlier known as Dr. Fresh Healthcare P. Ltd.) Versus ITO, Ward- 1 (4) New Delhi - TMI Issues:1. Ex-parte order passed against the assessee without a proper hearing.2. Jurisdictional issues in passing the order under section 148.3. Addition of a specific amount without proper basis.4. Adequacy of opportunity of being heard.Analysis:Issue 1: Ex-parte order without a proper hearingThe appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer under sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that both the Commissioner and the Income Tax Officer erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. The Counsel for the assessee argued that the ex-parte order was based on notices issued to an incorrect address. However, the Senior DR defended the orders, stating that the correct address was used for communication.Issue 2: Jurisdictional issues in passing the order under section 148The assessment order was passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. The appellant, Dr. Fresh Property Development Pvt. Ltd., failed to attend despite multiple notices issued by the Income Tax Officer. The address discrepancy raised by the appellant was noted, indicating that notices were sent to the wrong address. The order mentioned the address as 'M/s. Dr. Fresh Property Dev Pvt. Ltd., 11A, 1B- 43C, Old DLF, Gurugram-122001,' which differed from the address claimed by the appellant. The First Appellate Authority issued notices via email, and despite adjournments, no submission was made by the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Issue 3: Addition of a specific amount without proper basisThe Income Tax Officer had reopened the case under section 147 based on information regarding an investment in immovable property. Despite repeated notices and a show cause notice seeking an explanation for the investment, the appellant failed to provide any explanation. Consequently, the investment was treated as unexplained, and an addition of Rs. 1,27,50,000 was made. The appellant did not furnish any explanation during the appeal, leading to the confirmation of the addition.Issue 4: Adequacy of opportunity of being heardThe Tribunal observed an error in the proceedings by both the Income Tax Officer and the First Appellate Authority in not providing adequate hearing opportunities to the assessee. The address discrepancy and the lack of proper communication were highlighted. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal should be allowed for restoration to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits after providing a hearing opportunity to the assessee.In conclusion, the appeal succeeded on the grounds of inadequate hearing opportunities and address discrepancies, leading to a remand of the case for a fresh decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
