MR. KISHORE GENUBHAU DANGAT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 17(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1341/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 December 2021AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits after considering the material and providing an opportunity to the assessee, as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed direct and indirect expenses of ₹74,94,179/- without showing any income from projects or treating them as 'work-in-progress'. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without discussing the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a proper adjudication on merits and without providing an opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Respondent: Mr. Vinay Kaushal, DR
Hearing: 01/12/2021Pronounced: 02/12/2021

ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, A.M. The appeal has been filed by the assessee mainly on the issue of upholding the addition of ₹74,94,179/- by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of disallowance of direct and indirect expenses by the AO.

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand, Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →