ARUN BALWANT SARNOBAT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-35(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1171/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 July 2023AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1000/- to the Income Tax Department.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of deduction under section 54F. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to furnish details during assessment and appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Borgaonkar
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Hearing: 03.07.2023Pronounced: 04.07.2023

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 10.2.2023 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 54F of the I.T. Act.

2.

The Learned Authorised representative of the assessee has moved a petition requesting the bench to adjourn the case. However, learned DR submitted that the assessee did not furnish details called for by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and further the assessee did not cooperate with the learned CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. Hence, the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte confirming the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.

2 Arun B. Sarnobat

3.

The Learned AR on the contrary submitted that he has been engaged in this case recently and hence he has not prepared the case.

4.

We noticed that the learned CIT(A) was constrained to pass the order ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to the mail sent by the first appellate authority. Although the learned AR submitted that the assessee did not receive mails, yet the status with regard to the mails sent by the learned CIT(A) has been shown as delivered as per the records of Ld CIT(A). Be that as it may, we noticed that the assessee did not furnish relevant details before the Assessing Officer also. Under these set of facts, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the learned CIT(A). However the same will be at a cost in order to make the assessee to understand the importance of the income tax proceedings. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of income tax department as ‘other fees’ within the two months of the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of above said cost, which shall be verified by the learned CIT(A), all the issues urged before us are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. we also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →