ANIL M. GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, CITY-5, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 501/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 December 2021AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the revisionary order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Pr. CIT invoked revisionary powers under Section 263, citing an assessment order that added LTCG but made no disallowance for commission paid. The assessee was given only two working days to respond to the notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the revisionary order under Section 263 was passed without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ms. Shailja Rai, D.R
Pronounced: 07/12/2021

PAN No. ABLPG4889M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.R Revenue by : Shri Ms. Shailja Rai, D.R Date of Hearing :6&7/12/2021 Date of pronouncement :07/12/2021 ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, J.M:

1.

Appellant Anil M. Goyal, hereinafter referred to as the assessee by filing the present appeal sought to set-aside the impugned order passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short „the Pr.CIT‟), dated 15.03.2021 on the grounds inter alia that:

“1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in passing the revision order u/s.263 without allowing adequate opportunity of being heard and violated the principle of natural justice since only 2 working days were allowed to furnish the reply to e-notice u/s 263 of the Act; 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in passing the revision order u/s.263 though the re-assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is not erroneous and in so far is not prejudicial to interests of the revenue since Ld. AO had already made the addition of entire long term capital gain of Rs. 4,52,57,410/- which is subject matter of appeal; 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT erred seriously in revising the order u/s.263 on the basis of assumption and surmise and in absence of contrary evidence to examine the unclaimed commission allegedly paid to obtain the accommodation entries.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

2.

Briefly stated, the facts is necessary for adjudication of the controversy in hands are: assessment in this case was framed by the assessing officer at total income of Rs.459,48,030/- u/s 143 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „Act‟).

3.

The ld. Pr.CIT taking note of the fact that in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by the A.O the claim of Long Term Capital Gain („LTCG‟) amounting to Rs.452,57,410/- on sale of shares of M/s Shreenath Commercial and Finance Ltd. has been added to the total income of the assessee, however no disallowance/addition on account of commission paid was made in the assessment order. Consequently, the ld. Pr.CIT invoked the provisions contained u/s 263 of the Act by way of issuance of notice dated 04.03.2021. Finding the assessee having not availed of the opportunity by putting the appearance or by filing submissions, the ld. Pr.CIT proceeded to conclude that since disallowance of commission expenses incurred for obtaining the said bogus LTCG has not been made by the A.O by making proper inquiries, the assessment order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s 263 of the Act and thereby set-aside the impugned order and directed the A.O to pass fresh assessment order. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way the filing the present appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorised Representatives of both the parties to the present appeal, perused the order passed by ld. lower revenue authorities in the light of the argument addressed and law on the issue in controversy.

6.

At the very outset, it is brought to the notice of the bench by the ld. A.R for the assessee that the assessee has never been provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard by Pr.CIT before passing impugned order u/s 263 of the Act. Providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee by a quasi judicial authority is a sine-qua-non for passing legally sustainable order. The impugned order by ld. Pr.CIT has failed to withstand the judicial scrutiny on account of violation of rule of natural justice, hence liable to be set-aside. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose directing the ld. Pr.CIT to pass a de novo order u/s 263 after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →