TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 21,61,820/- could not be considered as agriculture income of the assessee. He, therefore, was of the view that considering the documents filed by the assessee in support of the income returned by him, the same were not sufficient to establish the claim of the assessee vis-à-vis. the agriculture income and the AO ought to have made deeper inquiry regarding the same before accepting the returned income of the assessee. The PCIT, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the AO directing him to pass a fresh order for making necessary enquiries on the issue relating to agriculture income returned by the assessee. 3. The assessee has challenged the aforesaid order before us raising the following grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 even when: 1.1 The original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) did not satisfy the twin conditions of being an 'erroneous order' and 'prejudicial to the interest of revenue'. 1.2 The Worthy Pr. CIT has erred in setting aside the assessment order u/s. 143(3) and in directing the AO to make assessment afresh on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing necessary enquiries. In support of this contention, he relied on various case laws as under: 1. 'Sona Builders vs. UOI (SC), 251 ITR 197 2. M/s. Brolly Dealcom LLP vs. ITO (Cal. Trib.) ITA No. 1543/2013 3. Jayanthi Nathrarajan vs. ACIT (Mad. HC) 401 ITR 215 4. Tulsi Tracom Private Limited vs. CIT (Del. High Court) 161 DTR 148 5. CIT vs. Girdharilal (Raj. HC) 147 ITR 379 6. Pr. CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (Del. HC) 398 ITR 8 7. Smt. Lila Chaudhary vs. CIT (Gauh. HC) 289 ITR 226 8. Anita Rani vs. Pr. CIT (Del. Trib) ITA No. 2388, 2389 & 2390/2017 9. Amira Enterprises Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT (Del. Trib.) ITA No. 3206/2017 5. The ld. DR, however, has contended that due opportunity was afforded to the assessee and alternatively has stated that the issue may be sent back to the PCIT at best if it is considered that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the assessee and the order should not be set aside for this reason as contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee. 6. We have heard both the parties. The facts pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee to bring out the conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing granted to the assessee. The said letter was placed at Paper Book page No. 5 to 15 before us. Copy of acknowledgement from the IT Portal to the aforesaid reply filed by the assessee was placed at Paper Book page No. 16 to 17 and at Paper Book page No. 18 copy of screen shot from the IT Portal in respect of filing of reply on 23.03.2021 was fled. At Paper Book page No. 19 was placed a copy of e-mail dated 23.03.2021 which was also sent to the PCIT indicating the reply to the Show Cause Notice filed on 23.03.2021. At Paper Book page No. 20, 21 and 22 were filed copy of request letters to the PCIT for recalling of the order filed the very next day itself i.e. on 24/03/21 since the reply had not been considered despite having been filed during official hours itself on the specified date and also copy of the e-mail sent to the Ld. PCIT the same day attaching the said letter. 7. Basis the aforesaid facts, the pleading of the ld. counsel for the assessee is that the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act were initiated just 15 days before the limitation for passing order was to expire and the assessee was not even given adequate opportunity to respond since the first notice was issued on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i.e. 23/03/2021. The impugned order, we hold, has not only has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice but is also in violation of the procedure laid down u/s. 263 of the Act which specifically requires the authorities to pass the order u/s. 263 after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after making such enquiry as is deemed necessary. In the present case, the Ld. PCIT has neither afforded adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee but by not taking note of the reply, he has not even made necessary enquiries in the present case before passing the impugned order. The order passed, therefore, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and in view of the various decisions cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee before us, the only recourse is to set aside the same. 8.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sona Builders (supra) has held that where there was gross breach of the principles of natural justice, the matter could not be remanded back to the appropriate authority. In the said case, the notice of hearing gave only 5 days time to the parties to respond which included the week end. Same was foun....