ZANUL ABIDEN VAHORA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 (1)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1365/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 January 2022AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The assessee was not residing in India during the relevant period, leading to no representation before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11 was heard. The assessee claimed inability to attend proceedings due to compelling circumstances and argued against the validity of the reassessment notice and additions made. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without following principles of natural justice, and whether the reassessment proceedings and additions were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 145(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PROMOD KUMARAND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR
For Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Hearing: 11/01/2022Pronounced: 17/01/2022

PER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

1.

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2010-11 dated 17.04.2017 and arises out of assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

2.

The following grounds raised by the assesse are as under :

1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the appeal order ex-parte on ignoring the fact that appellant could not attend the appellate and assessment

Zanul Abiden Vahora 2 proceedings under the bonafide reasons and compelling circumstances beyond control of the appellant; 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148 issued in absence of fresh tangible material, without independent application of mind on borrowed satisfaction and without having valid reason to believe of escapement of income; 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of appellant's books of accounts us 145(3) of the Act; 4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition w/ 68 of Cash deposits of Rs.24,52,883/- and cheque/ RTGS deposits made in the bank accounts of Rs.25,90,000/- totalling to Rs.50,42,883/-; 5. Without prejudice, the concept of real income ought to have been adopted and addition ought to have sustained to extent of the actual profits @ 5%embedded in disputed receipts; 6. Without prejudice, the addition of cash credits utmost be restricted to the peak of cash and cheque credits on following the telescoping method.

3.

During the year, the assessee was engaged in the business of sale and supply of belts and wallets. The assessee filed return of income on 31.03.2012 declaring total income of ₹2,49,820/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹50,42,883/- in respect of unexplained cash credits as well as ₹9,783/- as bank interest. The assessment was completed on 20.03.2015.

4.

Being aggrieved by assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and has not followed principles of natural justice, therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the grounds on merits.

6.

The DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Zanul Abiden Vahora 3

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that since the assessee was not residing in India for the particular period no representation was done by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back the entire issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →