SHREE GANESH FORGINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5399/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 September 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly heard by the CIT(A) despite opportunities. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity of being heard by restoring the matter to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowances and penalty notice without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1),Section 32,Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi
For Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Hearing: 13.09.2021Pronounced: 13.09.2021

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

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 28.01.2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

Assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - “1. GROUND NO. 1 The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the learned AO under section 143(3) of the Act, even though it is (A.Y: 2015-16) Shree Ganesh Forgings Limited capricious in nature and has been made ignoring the established and undisputed facts. The said order is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable provisions of the Act and it must thus be declared invalid. GROUND NO.2 Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 above, the learned CIT(A) erred, under the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable provisions of the Act, in upholding the disallowance of Rs.35,54,115/- under the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, since the same was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and it must thus be declared invalid. GROUND N0.3 Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 and 2 above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.3,54,20,630/-, to the appellant's total income, under the provisions of section 32 of the Act and the same must be deleted being contrary to the facts of the case and the applicable provisions of the Act. Your appellant is a Private Limited company whose main source and Business is of Hotel industry comprising of Room sales and Restaurant services. GROUND N0.4 The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the issuance of penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the learned AO, and the same must be quashed.”

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) Shree Ganesh Forgings Limited 5. Heard both sides, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that the even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions 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.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →