AAYAS STEEL PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -9(1) (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1956/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 January 2023AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that although opportunities were provided, the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A). Considering the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment, the issuance of notice, and additions made on account of unsecured loans and loans advanced.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and whether the reopening of assessment and subsequent additions were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HONBLEShri Prateek Jain Shri S. Anbuselvam

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain
For Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvam
Hearing: 14.11.2022Pronounced: 31.01.2023

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 13.06.2022 for the A.Y.2012-13.

1.

(A.Y: 2012-13) Aayas Steel Private Limited 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another.

1. On the facts and circumstance of the Appellant's case, Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order, without affording the appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard.

2. On the facts and circumstance of the Appellant's case, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Id. A.O. in reopening the impugned assessment which is barred by limitation as per proviso to section 147 of the Act.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Id. A.O. of issuing notice u/s 148 without proper sanction u/s 151 of the Act.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of ld. A.O. in making an addition on account of unsecured loan and loans advanced while the case was re-opened for verification of purchase of immovable property for which no addition has been made, for reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise.

5. On the facts and circumstance of the Appellant's case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of ld. A.O. in treating the unsecured loan of Rs.2,51,50,000/- as unexplained credit, without considering the material available on record, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.

6. On the facts and circumstance of the Appellant's case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Id. A.O. in treating the loans and advances amounting to Rs.83,36,625/- as unexplained investment, without considering the material available on record, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.

7. The appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing

(A.Y: 2012-13) Aayas Steel Private Limited The appellant prays this Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer, which is confirmed by the Learned CIT (A).”

3.

At the outset, 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 appear. 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

(A.Y: 2012-13) Aayas Steel Private Limited unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2023

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →