THE WESTERN INDIA GENUINE GHEE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,T J ROAD SEWREE, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5931/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 January 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard by the NFAC. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the case was remanded back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessee challenged an order by the NFAC which affirmed the AO's disallowance of Rs.9,99,224/- for interest on a loan taken for land purchase. The Assessee claimed they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the NFAC.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessee was provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the NFAC before passing the impugned order. Whether the disallowance of interest on loan for land purchase was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 154,Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 09.01.2025Pronounced: 09.01.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2015-16. considering the fact that the impugned order is an ex-parte, this Court is inclined to proceed with the case by dismissing the adjournment sought for.

3.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It appears from the impugned order that the Assessee has challenged the order dated 24.03.2022 u/s 154 of the Act passed by the ITO Ward- 8(3)(2), Mumbai. Notice for the appellate proceedings was issued to the Assessee on 17.09.2024, on which date as per Ld. AR, the Assessee had sought for adjournment but somehow the Ld. Commissioner without adjourning the case further, passed the impugned order on 25.10.2024 whereby affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in disallowing the amount of Rs.9,99,224/- u/s 37(1) of the Act on account of alleged interest paid on loan taken for purchase of land, by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee. Admittedly, in the absence of relevant documents/reply/ submission which the Assessee has failed to file due to non-providing the proper opportunity by the Ld. Commissioner, the issue involved in this case remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner and therefore for the just and proper decision of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, this Court deem it appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2025.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →