SUBRAMANIAN V MELLARCODE,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 664/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added the investment in immovable property to the assessee's income as no explanation was provided for its source. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance with notices. The assessee's counsel argued that notices were not served during assessment and the assessee expired during appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits, especially when the assessee had expired during the appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 69,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 10.05.2023Pronounced: 12.05.2023

Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 06.01.2023 for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Fact in brief is that the A.O has noticed from the NMS module system that assesse has made investment in the immovable property at Rs.1,02,68,000/-. The assessing officer stated that during the course of assessment the assesse has failed to make any submission in spite of notices issued to explain the source of investment made in the immovable property. Therefore, the A.O has completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act and added the total amount of P a g e | 2 Rs.1,02,68,000/- invested in the immovable property u/s 69 of the Act to the total income of assesse.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of non- compliance to the notices issued during the course of appellate proceedings.

4.

During the course of appellate proceedings the ld. Counsel filed paper book and submitted that order u/s 144 of the Act was completed without serving of notices upon the assessee. The ld. Counsel further submitted that during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) the compliance could not be made because the assesse was expired during the course of appellate proceedings. On the other hand, ld. D.R supported the order of the assessing officer.

5.

Heard the rival contention and perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merit but the appeal was dismissed for want of non-compliance. Regarding not making compliance before the lower authorities, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO, no notice of hearing was served upon the assessee. Thereafter at the time of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee was expired on 18.11.2002 before the completion of appellate proceedings and the ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order on 06.01.2023. 6. After considering the above facts and circumstances we have also perused the provision of Sec. 250(6) of the Act which contemplates that the ld. CIT(A) would determine the point in dispute and record reason of such point in support of his conclusion for adjudicating the issue in appeal on merit. However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for P a g e | 3 Subramanian V. Mellarcode Vs. CIT(A) NFAC want of non-prosecution. Therefore, we restore this case to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh on merit as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act after giving more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.05.2023 (Kuldip Singh) (Amarjit Singh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 12.05.2023 Rohit: PS

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

सत्यावपि प्रवि //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →