BEHRAM JIMMY KARBHARI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-46, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2887/MUM/2022Status: HeardITAT Mumbai02 January 2023AY 2014-20153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order without providing an opportunity to be heard and erred in not granting an adjournment request.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and in not granting an adjournment request.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B‘ BENCH

For Appellant: Ms. Zeal Savla
For Respondent: Shri Chetan M Kacha
Hearing: 02/01/2023Pronounced: 02/01/2023

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

This appeal in for A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in appeal No.CIT(A)-46, Mumbai/10836/2016-17 dated 16/09/2022 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 30/12/2016 by the ld. Income Tax Officer- 35(1)(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order u/s 250 without giving opportunity.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred by not granting the request for adjournment filed on 08.09.2022 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing deduction u/s 80C amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in making adhoc addition of Rs. 74,45,493/- being 1% of alleged share transactions of Rs. 74,45,49,384/-, whereas in fact and on the basis of evidence with the AO, the appellant has incurred a loss. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal

3. The assessee representative was present at the time of hearing and sought for an adjournment. But we find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) has been passed exparte on the ground that there was no response from the side of the assessee. But Ground No.2 raised by the assessee states that assessee had filed an adjournment request before the ld. CIT(A) on 08/09/2022. Either way this is only an exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

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

Order pronounced in open Court on 02/01/2023.

More judgments on Section 80C

All 658 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →