AHALYA TRADING PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 274/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 April 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to provide the assessee with another opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) was then to decide the appeal on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte, without providing a sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The assessee requested another opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah
For Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty
Hearing: 22/03/2022Pronounced: 18/04/2022

O R D E R Per: S.Rifaur Rahman (AM): This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 08/06/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The Ld.AR of the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee exparte thereby denying sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the Ld.AR prayed that one

2 ITA 274/Mum/2019 more opportunity may be given to the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) to present the case of the assessee. The Ld.DR opposed the prayer.

3.

Heard the rival submissions. We notice that the Ld.CIT(A), detailing the number of opportunities of hearing provided to the assessee, decided the appeal exparte, on merits. Thus, in substance, he upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in verbatim. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Kattiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that when technicalities are pitted against each other substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. In the case on hand, we find that giving one more opportunity to the assessee before CIT(A) to present its case, would in no way harm either party. Rather, it would augument the cause of justice and fairplay. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to give another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after hearing the assessee, to decide the appeal on merit. The assessee is directed to prosecute its appeal before CIT(A) diligently.

4.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →