NITIN AMRATLAL BRAHMBHATT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2685/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 November 2023AY 2014-157 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without ensuring the assessee received proper notice and had a fair opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption for long-term capital gains on share sales. The AO added this gain to the total income, doubting its genuineness. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice and a fair hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &, Shri Om Kandalkar, Advocates
For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Hearing: 08.11.2023Pronounced: 10.11.2023
1.

This appeal filed by the assessee Shri. Nitin Amratlal Brahmbhatt for A.Y. 2014-15 against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai (“the

2.

The main grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without granting proper opportunity of hearing and therefore it is in violation of principles of the natural justice. Assessee is also aggrieved by the confirmation of addition on merits.

3.

Brief facts of the case shows that a. Assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on 21.11.2014 declaring total income of ₹ 27,41,317/-. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny.

b. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee has long term capital gain on sale of share of Rissa International Ltd. amounting to ₹ 4,99,10,775/- which is claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act.

4.

The assessee aggrieved with the above, preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) has decided the issue on the merit of the case against the assessee because of the reason that despite notices to the assessee on four different occasions, assessee did not remain present before him. On the merits, the Ld. CIT (A) reiterated the findings of the Ld. AO in absence of assessee remaining unrepresented before Ld. CIT (A).

5.

The assessee aggrieved with that order, has preferred the appeal against the exparte order of Ld. CIT (A) stating that the assessee remains unheard and further on the merits that the addition was not required to be made.

7.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (”the DR”) also submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) has been passed exparte, as despite notice issued 4 times, none appeared before him.

8.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of lower authorities. The Ld. CIT (A) has categorically held that notices were issued four times to the assessee but there is no explanation from side of the assessee and therefore reiterating the assessment order the addition were confirmed. There is nothing wrong in the order of the LD CIT [A]. Though the ld. CIT (A) might

9.

The other grounds of appeals are left open to be argued before the first appellate authority.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.11. 2023.

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →