M/S. C M ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2) (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1547/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 October 2022AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh hearing. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case, subject to payment of costs.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT challenging the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) or the ITAT, leading to ex-parte proceedings. The CIT(A) had confirmed additions made by the AO and disallowed depreciation.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities. The appeal also involved additions under Section 68 and disallowance of depreciation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri
Hearing: 03.10.2022Pronounced: 04.10.2022

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the learned CIT(A)-12, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed that the Registry has sent the notice of hearing by registered post on more than one occasion and they have been returned back by the postal authority. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

3.

We have heard learned DR and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee had challenged the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming

(a) the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the I.T. Act and (b) the disallowance of depreciation.

2 M/s. C.M. Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

We also noticed that the assessee has not appeared before the learned CIT(A) despite the fact that the learned CIT(A) has sent notices on four occasions. Hence, the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte. We noticed that there was delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the Ld CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay. Further, he has also confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Before us also assessee did not appear. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record.

5.

We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte, without hearing the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present its case before the learned CIT(A), subject to payment of a cost. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of Income tax department within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of above cost, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file. The Ld CIT(A), after ensuring the payment of cost mentioned above, may decide the issues in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 04.10.2022.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →