Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH
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’).
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.
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.