SHARAD SINGHANIA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 21()(), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4341/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 October 2021AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even if dismissed for non-prosecution. The ex-parte order was set aside as it violated principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, without allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without deciding the issues on merit. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A)'s order was based on presumptions and violated principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution is valid without deciding the issues on merit and without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

Hearing: 07.10.2021Pronounced: 07.10.2021

O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These appeals of two different assessee is are arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-30, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal Nos. CIT(A)- 30/19(3)(2)/10665 & 10667/17-18 even date 04.04.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 19(3)(2) Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2010-11 even date 15.12.2017 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, it is noticed from the order of the CIT(A) that CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. The order of CIT(A) is totally ex-parte despite the fact that many adjournments were allowed by CIT(A). The disallowance has been confirmed 2 Sharad Singhania (HUF); AY 09 -10 by the CIT(A) on presumptions, assumptions, conjunctures and surmises and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee in violation of principles of natural justice.

3.

When this was pointed out to Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative, Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, he fairly conceded the position and could not controvert the above submissions.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →