VALUE FREIGHT (MUMBAI) PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 674/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 September 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance, despite the assessee claiming a misunderstanding and lack of attendance. The assessee sought an opportunity to present their case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions on merits, and whether principles of natural justice require a fresh hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(2)(b),Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Usha Gaikwad, DR
Hearing: 02.09.2021Pronounced: 06.09.2021

O R D E R

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai, passed u/s 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds;

"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the appellant submissions filed disputing the addition of Rs. 4,20,000/- u/s 40a(2)(b) of the IT Act on the ground that no one attended the matter The appellant had informed the representative however due to M/s. Value freight (Mumbai) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 2 - some misunderstanding the matter remained to be attended.

2. The appellant prays for condonation of the non attendance and prays for admission of this appeal and deletion of addition of Rs. 4,20,000/- which is not justified.

2.

At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte for non prosecution of appeal and prayed for an opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case on merits with the evidences before the appellate authority. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

3.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order considering the fact that there is no appearance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and notices were also issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte. We on perusal of the CIT(A) found that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notice of hearing, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not inclined to prosecute the appeal.

4.

We find that the assessee company has raised grounds of appeal challenging addition of the A.O. and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be M/s. Value freight (Mumbai) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 3 - overruled. We considering the principles of natural justice shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case along with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06.09.2021.

More judgments on Section 40A(2)(b)

All 1,172 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →