MR JOEY SHEKAR AROLKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 934/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 June 2023AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that although opportunities were provided, the assessee did not appear or comply with notices. However, to uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. The assessee argued that they were not given adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order by treating a gift as unexplained investment without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj Gujrar
For Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Pronounced: 21.06.2023

O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 24.01.2023 for the A.Y.2011-12.

(A.Y. 2011-12) Mr. Joey Shekar Arolkar 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant has raised following grounds of appeal without prejudice to one another: 1) The learned appellate authority has erred in upholding the assessment order thereby treating the Gift received as Unexplained Investments and adding the same as "Income from Other Sources". 2) The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal”

3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

4. Ld. DR has no serious objection in remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, on a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on multiple occasions assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices. Considering the totality of facts and submissions of the Ld. AR and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Page No. 2

(A.Y. 2011-12) Mr. Joey Shekar Arolkar Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard to meet interest of principles of natural justice. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjournments. Needless to say that the Ld.CIT(A) shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st June, 2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →