AMIT MADAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO-28(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 78/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 November 2021AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper reasoning. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte as the assessee failed to comply with notices and make submissions. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a speaking order and provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain
Hearing: 28/10/2021Pronounced: 05/11/2021

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in Appeal No. CIT(A)-26/ IT-10620/2016-17 dated 25.09.2019. The assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(1), Mumbai for Assessment Year 2014-15 vide his order dated 29.12.2016 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal order of CIT(A) that the same is ex parte and non-speaking order. The findings recorded by the CIT(A) in paragraph 5 of his order reads as under :-

Amit Madan “5. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has not complied to any of the notices as stated above nor any submissions were made. Hence it can be inferred that the assessee has nothing to say in support of the grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal filed by the appellant are general in nature and no specific ground has been raised. Statement of facts filed with Form No. 35 also does not help the appellant. Therefore, in view of these facts of the case, I have no reason to deviate from the order of the AO. Hence, the addition of Rs.27,07,500/- u/s. 68 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer for AY 2014-15 is confirmed. The appellant’s grounds of appeal are ‘Dismissed’.”

When these findings were confronted to the learned Sr. DR, he could not controvert that the order of CIT(A) is non-speaking order.

3.

None is present from assessee’s side. However, by perusing the order of CIT(A), which is a non-speaking order, I decide this appeal. As the order of CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, I set-aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard and thereafter pass a speaking order.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 5th November, 2021.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →