M/S SAIMAN SYNTHETICS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT-CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2770/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 January 2023AY 2017-20184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the issues without submissions from the assessee on merits, despite providing opportunities. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions made by the AO on account of stock valuation difference and cash found. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding additions without providing adequate opportunity for the assessee to present its case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh D. sundesha
For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Kumar Rai
Hearing: 10.01.2023Pronounced: 31.01.2023
1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 23.09.2022 for the A.Y.2017-18.

2 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s. Saiman Synthetics 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 12,44,325/- made by the Ld AO on account of difference in valuation of stock as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.7,65,094/- made by the Ld AO on account of difference in cash found as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.

3. Your Appellant crave, leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

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 3 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s. Saiman Synthetics Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions assessee could not appear. We observe that Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue without there being any submissions from the assessee on merits. We have considered 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. It is needless to say that the assessee may be given proper opportunity of being heard.

6.

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

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

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →