VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 32(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 982/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 January 2023AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a speculation loss, but the AO disallowed it based on AIR information about share transactions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala.AR
For Respondent: Smt. Jayashree Thakur.DR
Hearing: 19.01.2023Pronounced: 19.01.2023

O R D E R

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A), passed u/s 143(3) and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal:

1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by not deleting the disallowance of the claim of speculation loss of Rs. 68,92,101/- by the Appellant during the referred year.

Vivekk Raghu Shetty, Mumbai. - 2 -

2.

The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from house property, income from speculation business, and interest income. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 disclosing a total income of Rs.2,69,500/- and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued. Since there was no compliance to the notice, the AO has issued show cause notice, in compliance to the show cause notice the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details. The A.O. find that as per the revised computation the assessee has incurred loss from speculative business but as per the AIR information that the assessee has transacted in shares and hence the speculation loss claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed and assessed the total income of Rs. 2,69,570/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 20.12.2018.

Vivekk Raghu Shetty, Mumbai. - 3 -

3.

Aggrieved by the order the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee to notices. Therefore the CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer. The assessee has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidence and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

5.

Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no Vivekk Raghu Shetty, Mumbai. - 4 - appearance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the assessing officer. The Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing referred at Page 2&3 of the order, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the action of the A.O and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the principles of natural justice shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case along with evidences and information. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information and allow

Vivekk Raghu Shetty, Mumbai. - 5 - the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.01.2023.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →