SAKARWADI TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7506/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 July 2021AY 2012-133 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and the assessee was not given an opportunity to plead their case. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals arose from ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The assessee contended that they were not granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, AR

Hearing: 29.07.2021Pronounced: 29.07.2021

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 7506/Mum/2019

ITA No. 7507/Mum/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These appeals of the assessee are arising out of orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-6, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-6/IT-37 & 42/2015-16 & 2016-17 vide dated 18.09.2019 & 11.09.2019. The Assessments were framed by the Income Tax officer, Ward-2(3)(2), Mumbai (in short ACIT / AO) for the A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 vide order dated 21.03.2016 & 18.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →