LUCY TREVOR PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1986/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2022AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without considering the adjournment requests. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) despite requests for adjournment. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- as unexplained money. The ITAT noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and whether the addition made under Section 69A was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Hearing: 28.09.2022Pronounced: 30.09.2022

O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 15.06.2022 for the A.Y.2017-18.

(A.Y: 2017-18) Lucy Trevor Pereira 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: “1. The Hon. CIT(A). National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in deciding the appeal exparte, ignoring the request letter filed seeking adjournment of hearing and needlessly presuming that appellant was not interested in persuing the appeal, thereby deciding the appeal in absolute breach of the salient principles of equity, fairplay and natural justice, for which reason the appeal order be quashed/set aside.

2. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/-, as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961, on account of cash deposited in the bank accounts, without appreciating the fact that provisions of section 69A had no application to the facts of the appellants case and the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts was fully explainable and supported by adequate evidences and therefore the unjustified addition be kindly deleted.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary any of the above grounds of appeal at any time before the decision of the appeal.”

3.

Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR on merits.

4.

Considered the submissions of Ld.DR and material placed on record. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on multiple occasions assessee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A), however, on 26.05.2022 and 10.06.2022 assessee requested for adjournment. Ld.CIT(A) has not considered the above letters. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the (A.Y: 2017-18) Lucy Trevor Pereira case and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th September, 2022.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →