Case Number: ITA 1037/DEL/2021
Appellant: Shri Prayag Singh, Rajasthan
Respondent: ACIT, Circle-65(1), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Result: 2010-11
Case Filed on: 2021-08-31
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2023-02-17
Pronounced on: 2023-02-17
The case of Shri Prayag Singh, Rajasthan versus ACIT, Circle-65(1), New Delhi revolves around the reassessment proceedings and the addition of pension income for the assessment year 2010-11. The appellant, Shri Prayag Singh, challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 and the subsequent addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of Rs.2,76,844/- representing undisclosed pension income.
Shri Prayag Singh filed his return of income on 14th July 2010, declaring a total income of Rs.5,73,062/-. The AO received information regarding the receipt of pension amounting to Rs.2,76,844/-, which was allegedly not disclosed in the return of income. Consequently, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Due to the non-attendance of the assessee or his representative during the assessment proceedings, the AO made an addition of Rs.2,76,844/- to the declared income, resulting in an assessed income of Rs.8,49,910/-.
The grounds raised by the appellant were as follows:
1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the determination of income at Rs.8,49,910/- as against the declared income of Rs.5,73,062/-.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notice and order of assessment were not served on the appellant, violating the principles of natural justice.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the initiation of proceedings under section 147 without specific, relevant, reliable, and tangible material to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.2,76,844/- representing pension income, which was already declared in the return of income.
5. Both authorities below framed the impugned order without granting sufficient and proper opportunity to the appellant, contrary to the principle of natural justice.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act.
The Tribunal reviewed the arguments and submissions of both parties. The appellant’s counsel contended that the notice issued for reopening the assessment was not served on the appellant and that sufficient opportunity was not provided. It was argued that the pension income was duly reflected in Form 16 and included in the return of income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not served with the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Additionally, it was evident from the return of income that the appellant had disclosed the pension income. The AO failed to grant deduction under section 80C of the Act to the assessee. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal found the impugned addition to be unjustified and deleted it, setting aside the orders of the authorities below.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Shri Prayag Singh for statistical purposes. The addition of Rs.2,76,844/- was deleted, and the orders of the authorities below were set aside.
In conclusion, the ITAT, Delhi Bench, provided a fair judgment by allowing the appeal concerning the reassessment and the addition of pension income for the assessment year 2010-11, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Pronounced in the open court on 17th February 2023.
Signed:
(KUL BHARAT)
Judicial Member
Dated: 17th February 2023
Copy forwarded to:
Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform