Case Number: ITA 1147/DEL/2021
Appellant: Radhika Chopra, New Delhi
Respondent: ITO, Ward-50(3), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Case Filed on: 2021-09-17
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-03-23
Pronounced on: 2022-03-23
Case Conclusion: In the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “SMC”, New Delhi
Panel: Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member
The appeal by Radhika Chopra is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.07.2021, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were primarily focused on procedural lapses and the principles of natural justice.
The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had invested Rs. 5,00,000 in Aviva Life Insurance India Ltd. on 08.02.2011. This money was reportedly deposited in the bank account of Shri S. Sumit Anand and subsequently used to make a demand draft for the policy in the name of the assessee. Additionally, the Assessing Officer observed that a total interest of Rs. 1,95,988 was credited as per Form 26AS. However, the assessee’s income tax return for the AY 2011-12 reflected an income of Rs. 2,95,870. Consequently, the case was reopened, and the assessment was framed under section 144 read with section 147, assessing the income at Rs. 9,91,858. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, prompting the assessee to approach the ITAT.
During the ITAT hearing, the assessee’s counsel argued that the Assessing Officer failed to supply the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, which is a violation of natural justice. The counsel further contended that the assessment was conducted without providing adequate opportunity for the assessee to represent her case. The counsel for the Revenue conceded that the matter could be restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
Upon hearing the arguments and reviewing the material on record, the Tribunal noted that the reasons for reopening the assessment were not provided to the assessee, which is a significant procedural lapse. The Tribunal emphasized that the reasons for reopening go to the root of the case and the assessee has a legal right to object to the reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment order and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer, directing them to provide the reasons recorded for reopening and to dispose of any objections. The Assessing Officer was also instructed to provide adequate opportunity for the assessee to present her case.
The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after addressing the procedural lapses.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/03/2022.
Panel: Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member
Copy forwarded to:
Assistant Registrar
Radhika Chopra vs. ITO, Ward-50(3), New Delhi: Reopening of Assessment for AY 2011-12
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