INDIA PRINTING WORKS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) India Printing Works India Printing House 42, G.D. Ambekar Road, Wadala Mumbai-400 031. Vs. DCIT-20(1) Mumbai PAN : AAAFI0699H
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-
The appellant filed an appeal in the above captioned appeal with these grounds :-
Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing Order u/s 250 of the Act, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without going into merits of the case.
Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the said Order u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2016-2017, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in passing Order u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2016-2017 wherein, all the facts and findings are mentioned that of AY 2009- 20
Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the said Order u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2016-2017
wherein, all the facts and findings are mentioned that of AY 2009-2010, is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing Order u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2016-2017 without granting Opportunity of being
India Printing Works
2
Heard to the Appellant.
Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, all the Hearing Notices dates as mentioned in the CIT
(A) Order for AY 2016-17 alleging that opportunity to appellant was furnished, are in fact, pertaining to AY 2009-10 and not of AY 2016-17. Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, Order u/s 250 of the Act, directly dismissing the appeal, without affording any Opportunity of being Heard to the appellant is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the learned assessing officer levying tax on Deemed Short Term Capital Gain u/s 50 of the Act © @ 30% as against 20% as leviable under the Law without adjudicating on the said ground raised by Appellant.
Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, rate of Tax ought to have been charged should be 20% as specified u/s 112 of the Act as against 30% charged by Assessing officer.
Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, said rate of tax applied i.e. @30% is bad in law and thus, Order dismissing the Appeal filed u/s 250 of the Act on the said Ground is bad in law deserves to be quashed.
During the hearing before the ITAT, Ld. AR of the appellant has brought it to the notice of the Bench that the appeal order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2016-17 but all the facts and figures are mentioned that of A.Y. 2009-10. In view of the above glaring mistake, the Ld. AR of the appellant has requested the Bench to remand the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication on all matters raised for A.Y. 2016-17 and pass the order after giving an opportunity to the appellant.
The Ld. DR did not object to the same.
Accordingly, after hearing the rival submissions, the matter is remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to the appellant.
India Printing Works
3
5. The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/03/2025. (BEENA PILLAI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated: 26/03/2025
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(