LATA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 12(3) (3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided without sufficient opportunity of hearing. The assessee also raised additional grounds challenging the reopening of assessment before the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and whether the reopening of assessment was valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “ A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ( in short ‘the CIT(A) ’) dated 17/09/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13.
Shri C.S.Anand appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the CIT(A) issued only single notice of hearing i.e. for dated 18/02/2021. Thereafter, no further notice was issued to the assessee and CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 17/09/2021.
2.1 The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee further submitted that the assessee while filing appeal before the CIT(A) had only assailed additions on merits and the detailed grounds challenging reopening of assessment has been raised now in Second Appellate proceedings before the Tribunal. Detailed grounds were not raised before the CIT(A), although ground assailing reopening of assessment was raised. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that ground No.1 to 5 of the appeal before the Tribunal are additional grounds raising legal issue challenging validity of reopening the proceedings. No fresh evidences is required to be adduced for deciding this legal ground. The assessee would make his detailed submissions on the legal issue as well as on merits on the addition before the First Appellate Authority if the appeal is restored to First Appellate Authority. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee prayed for admission of additional grounds of appeal and restoring the appeal back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits as well as considering the legal issue raised in additional grounds of appeal.
3. Per contra, Shri Manoj Sinha representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that notice of hearing issued by CIT(A) was duly served on the assessee, despite service of notice the assessee failed to comply with the same. The ld.Departmental Representative prayed for upholding the impugned order.
We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The assessee in ground No.1 to 5 of the appeal has assailed reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that although ground No.1 to 5 of the appeal are given in grounds of appeal, however, these are additional grounds and were not raised before the CIT(A). We find that in Form No.35 the assessee has challenged reopening of assessment in ground No.1 of the appeal, however, the assessee in second appeal before the Tribunal has raised exhaustive grounds challenging initiation of proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. The additional grounds of appeal i.e. ground No.1 to 5 being legal issue are admitted for adjudication. Since, relevant documents are already on record no fresh evidence is required to be adduced on this issue. The grounds No.1 to 5 of appeal are admitted for adjudication on merits.
The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee has pointed that the CIT(A) has passed impugned order without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee could not file its submissions before the CIT(A) in response to the notice dated 03/02/2021 and thereafter no further notice was issued by CIT(A). Taking into consideration entirety of facts, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) while deciding appeal of the assessee on merits shall also consider additional grounds of appeal raised before the Tribunal i.e. grounds No.1 to 5 of the appeal on jurisdictional issue. The CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing / opportunity to make submissions before deciding the appeal, in accordance with law.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shalini Vishwakarma vs. Icici BankMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026