Case Number: ITA 638/DEL/2019
Appellant: Surender Kumar Goel, New Delhi
Respondent: ITO, Ward-60(5), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Result: Quashed
Case Filed On: 2019-01-29
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2023-01-04
Pronounced On: 2023-01-04
The case of Surender Kumar Goel vs ITO in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2010-11 revolves around procedural lapses in the reassessment process. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case, the proceedings, and the final judgment that led to the quashing of the reassessment order.
Surender Kumar Goel, the appellant in this case, had filed an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 24.12.2018, for the assessment year 2010-11. The dispute arose due to certain additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the reassessment proceedings. The assessee, dissatisfied with the CIT(A)’s order, filed an appeal with the ITAT.
The appeal was heard by the ITAT Bench ‘SMC’, New Delhi, comprising Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Member. The hearing was conducted on 22.12.2022, and the order was pronounced on 04.01.2023.
The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Prakesh Sinha, Advocate, argued that the AO failed to issue a valid notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a prerequisite for completing the reassessment proceedings. The counsel cited various legal precedents, including the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Silver Line, to support the argument that the reassessment order was invalid due to the lack of a proper notice.
The Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR), Shri Om Parkash, countered by arguing that the AO was not required to issue a notice under section 143(2) since the assessee had not filed a valid return of income in response to the notice under section 148.
After considering the submissions and examining the material on record, the ITAT found that the AO did not issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory for assuming jurisdiction to complete the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Silver Line, which emphasized that the failure to issue such a notice cannot be condoned, even if the assessee participated in the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information received from the Kolkata investigation wing, but the AO did not have substantial material to substantiate the allegations. The reassessment order was, therefore, quashed due to procedural lapses.
In conclusion, the ITAT’s decision in the case of Surender Kumar Goel vs ITO for the assessment year 2010-11 underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in reassessment proceedings. The quashing of the reassessment order highlights the significance of issuing proper notices under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This case serves as a reference for similar disputes, emphasizing the necessity of following due process in tax assessments and reassessments.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.01.2023 by the Judicial Member Shri C.M. Garg.
Source: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches ‘SMC’, New Delhi
Disclaimer: This article provides a general overview of the case and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. For detailed information, readers are encouraged to refer to the official case documents and consult with a qualified legal professional.
Surender Kumar Goel vs ITO: Tax Dispute for AY 2010-11 Quashed Due to Procedural Lapses
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