SHRI. HARMAN H BAWEJA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16 (1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7628/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 June 2022AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee had not participated. Therefore, it was not appropriate to decide the matter on merits at that stage. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenged an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed additions to income and charging of interest. The assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, and had also not responded to a show cause notice from the AO in earlier proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) should be adjudicated on merits or remitted back to the lower authority for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 254,Section 57,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI ‘SMC’ BENCH, MUMBAI

Appearances: Vimal Punmiya for the appellant Milind Chavan for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : March 11, 2022 Date of pronouncement the order : June 09 , 2022

O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP:

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 30th October 2019 passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Grievances raised by the assessee, which we will take up together, are as follows:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CTI(A) erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147 r.w.s. 254 of the I T Act, 1961 assessing the total income at Rs. 24,14,710/- and thereby erred in confirming the addition to the total income of the appellant, being the difference between the income earned from interest and expenses claimed to earn the income and thereby treated the same as non business expenditure in view of section 57 of the I T Act 1961.

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 3 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3.

When this appeal came up for hearing, it was noticed that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and that the assessee, despite having been given sufficient opportunity, did not appear before the learned CIT(A). Learned counsel for the assessee nevertheless urged us to adjudicate on merits as, according to him, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the learned CIT(A) and, as this is second round of proceedings. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted that the matter can at best be remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee get another opportunity of appearing before him. He nevertheless defended the matter on merits as well.

4.

I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position.

5.

I have noted that the impugned CIT(A) order is an ex-parte order and that the assessee had even during the remand assessment proceedings not responded to the show cause notice dated 04.10.2018 issued by the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances in my considered view it would not be appropriate to deal with the matter on merits directly at this stage. I therefore deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after giving assessee one more opportunity of hearing, by way of a speaking order and in accordance with law. The assessee has liberty to address his arguments on merits before the learned CIT(A) and submit such supporting evidences as he deems fit. With these directions the matter stands restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication de novo.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on the 09th day of June 2022.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →