This article explores the tribunal case ITA 203/DEL/2019 involving Om Prakash’s appeal against the ITO, Ward-43(2), New Delhi, for the assessment year 2010-11.
The appeal by Om Prakash was directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -15, Delhi, which confirmed an addition of Rs.30,00,000 as long-term capital gain and Rs.10,00,000 as an unexplained deposit in the bank.
Om Prakash, an agriculturist, claimed that the deposits were from the sale proceeds of agricultural land owned with his brothers. Despite submissions of sale deeds and past savings, the Assessing Officer added these amounts due to lack of additional evidence at the time.
At the hearing, the appellant’s representative reiterated that all relevant evidence had been submitted, but the CIT(A) had issued an ex-parte order due to non-attendance by the assessee. The tribunal noted the necessity for a fair hearing and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for the assessee to cooperate.
The tribunal’s decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) highlights the importance of procedural justice and the right of the assessee to be heard adequately. This case serves as a crucial example of the judicial process ensuring fairness in the face of administrative oversights or lapses.
Case Analysis of ITA 203/DEL/2019: Om Prakash vs. ITO, Ward-43(2), 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