MR. SALEEM FAZEL FAZELBHOY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 26(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1162/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 January 2022AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, considering the documentary evidence filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without affording sufficient opportunity. The assessee claims to have filed documents during assessment and seeks to submit additional evidence before the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity, and whether the assessee should be allowed to present additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH.

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle Hariya
For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Assessee by : Shri Dinkle Hariya Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 08/12/2021 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31 /01/2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश/ ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 25/11/2019 for the assessment year 2016-17.

Shri Dinkle Hariya appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset 2. that the assessee is a senior citizen around 80 years of age. The CIT(A) without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, in an ex-parte proceedings has (A.Y.2016-17) dismissed the appeal of assessee/appellant. Even during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer without examining the documents furnished by the assessee has made an addition. The assessee in order to substantiate its contention has filed additional evidences viz demat statement, copy of interest payment advice for tax free income, copy of audited financial statements of Forefront Capital Management Pvt. Ltd., copy of HDFC Bank statement evidencing investment in UTI Gold Exchange Trade Fund and copy of statement of statement to show investment in tax free bonds of Power Finance Corporation. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that if an opportunity is granted to the assessee, the assessee would be able to substantiate investments made by the assessee, hence, the and the additions made during the assessment proceedings would not survive.

3.

Per contra Shri Sanjeev Kashyap representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that repeated opportunity of hearing was afforded to the assessee. On one of the occasions the ld. Representative for the assessee appeared and filed a letter seeking adjournment. On the request of ld. Representative for the assessee the hearing was adjourned to 14/11/2019. The notice of hearing for the next date i.e. 14/11/2019 was issued to the assessee on 29/10/2019. On the said date, despite notice neither the assessee nor the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee attended the proceedings. Hence, the CIT(A) was constrained to pass the order in an ex- parte proceeding.

4.

We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and perused the orders of authorities below and the documents on record.. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the assessee has not responded to the show

(A.Y.2016-17) cause notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 09/12/2018. The contention of the assessee is that the relevant documents were filed by the assessee along with reply dated 05/11/2018, 26/11/2018, 17/12/2018, 20/12/2018 and 21/12/2018, but the same were not considered by the Assessing Officer. The said replies by the assessee have been compiled and furnished before the Tribunal in the form of Paper Book. The assessee has also filed certain additional evidences before the Tribunal to substantiate that the investments were indeed made by the assessee. Taking into consideration entirety of facts, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue raised in the present appeal before the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after considering the documentary evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say, that the Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before making fresh assessment, in accordance with law. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid.

Order pronounced in the open Court on Monday the 31st day of January, 2022.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →