UNION STEEL ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR. 29(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1377/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 September 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte on the first date of hearing, despite a request for adjournment. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowance of business promotion/entertainment expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting an adjournment and providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but related to disallowance of expenses and procedural fairness.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE

Hearing: 14.09.2021Pronounced: 14.09.2021

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM)

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–40, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 13.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - (A.Y: 2015-16) M/s. Union Steel Associates “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in passing an order ex-parte on the appeal filed before him, against the order of the AO, on the first date of the hearing itself even when a letter was filed requesting for adjournment.

2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in upholding the order of the Asst. Comm. of Income Tax, in disallowing and adding a sum of Rs. 20,16,361 being the expenditure incurred for the purposes of Business Promotion / Entertainment and thereby reducing the loss.

3.

The appellant reserves its right to add to, alter, or amplify the grounds of appeal

. RELIEF CLAIMED IN APPEAL

1. Additions made on account of disallowance of business promotion / Entertainment expenses amounting to Rs. 20,16,361 be allowed in full.”

3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

4. Ld. DR has no serious objection in remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

5. Heard both sides, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) on the first

(A.Y: 2015-16) M/s. Union Steel Associates date of hearing without providing any adjournment as sought by the assessee, passed exparte order. Considering the totality of facts and submissions of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, I am of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to appear before Ld.CIT(A) and shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the virtual court on 14.09.2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →