Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which was based on the Assessing Officer's (AO) order. The AO had disregarded the valuation report of shares submitted by the appellant, citing it as an afterthought without substantial reason and also allegedly failed to provide a personal hearing after the valuation report was submitted.
Held
The Tribunal observed that for multiple hearing dates, no one was present from the appellant's side to argue the case. Consequently, the Tribunal decided that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the appellant's absence on multiple hearing dates, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.
Sections Cited
1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “F” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
1. Impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) pursuant to the order of Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") are based on incorrect appreciation of facts and incorrect interpretation of law, and therefore, bad in law.
2. The appellant's contentions are that the learned AO has erred in law and in facts by not considering the valuation report submitted, in the course of proceedings, even though such valuation report has not been submitted in the initial show cause notice since it had been missed out due to over sight but was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings.
3. The Ld. AO has disregarded the valuation of shares without giving any substantial reason and by merely doubting that this report prepared is an afterthought, even though the valuation has been done as per various methods including the methods prescribed under Rule 11 DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to arrive at fair value.
4. The Ld. AO had not provided an opportunity of being heard after with regard to the late submission of valuation report and an order was passed without any personal hearing, thereby not giving an opportunity to 2 Jumbo Distributors Private Limited the appellant to respond to such claims made by the AO, hence being Bad in Law and not providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts by changing the method of valuation and adopting a different method, than the one considered by the appellant, without making any reference to the valuation officer for valuation and without giving reasonable cause for the same.
The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts by stating that the value per share of INR 45 is not in line with the growth of the company, without considering the fact that the company was already having a turnover of INR 150 crores in FY 2015-16 and had projected a reasonable growth rate in the near future.
The Hon'ble CIT(A) has merely relied on the order passed by the Ld. AO, without any application of mind to the submissions and explanations made at first appellate level, thereby not giving thought to the facts submitted and denying the appellant, the principals of natural justice.
The Hon'ble CIT(A) has merely relied on the order passed by the Ld. AO and not considered the justification given by the appellant with regard to the typing error of the date 2018 instead of 2015, thereby ignoring material facts in this case.
The case was posted for hearing by ITAT on 19.8.2024, 19.9.2024, 7.11.2024, 12.12.2024, 27.1.2025 and finally on 4.3.2025. On all these days of hearing, none was present before the Bench for presenting the facts/arguing the appellant’s case.
In view of the above, it is decided that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/03/2025.