OHIRO REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,FORT, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 7(3)(1), NEW MARINE LINES, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H(SMC)”
BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ohiro
Real
Estate
Pvt.
Ltd.
207,
M.
K.
Bhavan,
Fort
Mumbai-400 001
v/s.
बनाम
ITO-Ward-7(3)(1),Mumbai
R. No. 211, Aayakar Bhavan, M.
K. Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai-
400 020
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCO2454J
Appellant/अपीलार्थी
..
Respondent/प्रतिवादी
Appellant by :
Shri Rajesh Shah, AR
Respondent by :
Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR)
Date of Hearing
22.01.2025
Date of Pronouncement
23.01.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-
The above captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi
[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
[hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Years [A.Y.] 2011-12
in respect of assessment order dated 27/12/2018 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act.
Facts of the case are that a sum of Rs 25 lakh was found credited in the bank account of the assessee which was treated as P a g e | 2 Ohiro Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.
unexplained credit in terms of section 68 of the Act as the assessee could not prove the credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The ld.CIT(A) in the course of appeal proceedings is stated to have sent several notices for hearing of the appeal which remained non complied by the assessee.He observed that all the notices were duly delivered electronically. Against all these notices, appellant was not interested in filing any details during the appellate proceedings and avail the opportunity under the principle of natural justice. He finally concluded that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal which was, therefore, dismissed.
3. It was argued on behalf of the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ex parte without giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and as such the assessee was prevented from presenting its case before him.It is claimed that the assessee did not receive any of the appeal notices claimed to have been sent to it. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and liable to be set aside. The Ld. DR on the other hand supporting the judgment of the Ld. CIT(A) stated that there is no merit in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions. Section 250, sub section 2(a) of "the Act" provides that the appellant either in person or by P a g e | 3 Ohiro Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.
an authorised representative shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal.’It is evident from the provision that the hearing to be given is not a formality but effective hearing is sine qua non for the purpose of upholding the principal of natural justice. However, it is equally true and duly reflected from the records that the assessee is also non-compliant and non -cooperative in its attitude before the authorities both during assessment and appeal proceedings. Consequently, there is lack of substantive hearing of the case.
5. Considering all the relevant facts of the case, we are of the view that following the principles of natural justice,it would be fair and judicious to allow a last opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the matter before authorities below in the interests of justice. During the hearing, the Bench proposed for restoration of the matter to the ld.CIT(A) for a de novo consideration. The Revenue did not vehemently oppose this plea. Thus, in the in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to send back the appeal for fresh consideration. The ld. CIT(A) shall give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in the set aside remand proceedings for de novo adjudication of the appeal. Needless to state, the assessee will comply with notices and make available any details as deemed fit and sought by the appellate authority .
P a g e | 4
Ohiro Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.
Before parting with the subject,we would like to make it clear that setting aside the appeal for de novo consideration by us ,should not be construed in any manner affecting the merits of the case for which the ld.CIT(A) is duly empowered to take an independent decision in accordance with the provisions of law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/01/2025. ANIKESH BANERJEE PRABHASH SHANKAR न्याययकसदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकारसदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
दिनाुंक /Date. 23.01.2025
Dhananjay Sr.PS
आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
P a g e | 5
Ohiro Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.
गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
सत्यावपि प्रवि ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.