PANKAJ J MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16 (3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 359/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 October 2021AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO, stating the assessee failed to provide evidence for depreciation claim and rebut the inspector's report.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Kapadia; AR
Hearing: 04.10.2021Pronounced: 04.10.2021

O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-7, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-7/IT-70/2018-19 vide dated 18.11.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(3), Mumbai (in short ACIT/ ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2016-17 vide order dated 28.12.2018 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee Mr. Kiran Kapadia stated that the order passed by CIT(A) is an ex- parte order and for this, assessee has raised the following ground NO.4 :-

1.

2 Pankaj J Mehta; AY 16-17 “5. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing opportunity to the appellant to present his case and confirmed the assessed income as assed by the AO.”

3.

On the other hand, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

4.

I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I noted that the order of CIT(A) has totally ex-parte and he noted this fact in Para 5 as under: - “5. ………………………………The assessee has been unable to prove that the premises in respect of which he had claimed depreciation under section 32 for Assessment Year 2016-17 was put to use before 31.03.2016. The assessee could not file electricity bills for the purpose of business. The assessee has not been able to rebut the inspector’s report which said that the said premises were under constructions even during the year when assessment proceedings were going on in Financial Year 2018-19. In the circumstances, I have no reason to take a view in the matter different from the one taken by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the addition of ₹12,25,860/- made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. ”

5.

Even in his finding it is noted that ‘I therefore, proceed to dispose off this appeal ex-parte on the basis of material on record.”

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →