SUNITA RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29 (3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1410/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 September 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued only one notice, and the assessee could not appear. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT concerned an addition of Rs. 4,16,073/- to their income and other related issues. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity for a hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether additions and interest levies were justified without proper verification and adherence to natural justice principles.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Varma
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 his appeal: - “addition of Rs. 4.16,073/- (A.Y: 2015-16) Sunita Rakesh Jain 1. The CIT (A) failed to service a proper notice to the Appellant and passed the ex-parte order.

2. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the AO did not carry out any independent enquiry himself for the reconciliation of sales amount therefore the addition sustained by CIT (A) is unjustified and is Liable to be deleted.

3.

The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the AO had not provided to the Appellant any material on which he placed reliance in making the impugned addition as also opportunity of cross examination thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore the addition is liable to be deleted.

4.

The CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of increase in sales of Rs.4,16,073/- without verification of the facts. Interest levied u/s 234A. 234B & 234C of the act 5. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B & 234C of the act. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings 6. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty proceedings initiated by AO u/s 271(l)(c) of the act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

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).

(A.Y: 2015-16) Sunita Rakesh Jain 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) provided only one notice and the assessee could not appear. 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.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →