VINAYAK BUCHADE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 357/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 April 2023AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) provided opportunities, the assessee failed to submit relevant information. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order from the CIT(A) that confirmed additions made by the ACIT. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C,Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE & MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HONBLE

Hearing: 12.04.2023Pronounced: 27.04.2023

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

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 09.12.2022 for the A.Y.2012-13.

(A.Y: 2012-13) Vinayak Buchade 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “(i) The CIT Appeal of National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the order of ACIT. (ii). The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the Addition of Rs. 7,41,629/~ being differences in purchases. (iii) The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the Addition of Rs. 7,41,6297- u/s 68/69C/37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iv). The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, and modify aforesaid ground/s of Appellant or any time before the hearing as they may be advised from time to time.”

3.

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 the even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not used the opportunity and filed the relevant information in support of his

(A.Y: 2012-13) Vinayak Buchade case. s Considering the totality of facts and submissions of the Ld. AR and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. 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.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th April, 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 →