NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-29(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5385/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2021AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable and lacking a proper hearing. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex-parte due to non-appearance on multiple hearing dates. The CIT(A)'s order was described as non-speaking and cryptic.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the CIT(A) without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHYShri Narendra S. Shah Dr. R.P. Road, Mulund (W),

Hearing: 27/07/2021Pronounced: 27/07/2021

अपीलाथ) -ारा/ Appellant by : None *ितवाद, -ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Smita Verma सुनवाई क. ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 27/07/2021 घोषणा क. ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 27/07/2021 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 23/05/2019 for the assessment year 2014-15.

आअसं. 5385/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2014-15) (A.Y.2014-15) 2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee in appeal is against the addition of Rs. 12,95,000/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] on account of unexplained cash deposits in the Savings Bank Account.

3.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed in an ex-party proceeding. The case was posted for hearing by the First Appellate Authority on 11.01.2018, 19.02.2018, 08.05.2018 and finally on 22.05.2018. On the aforesaid dates neither the assessee nor any Authorized Representative of the assessee was present to attend the proceedings. Neither any request for adjournment was made on behalf of the assessee on any of the aforesaid dates. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee on merits in a summary manner.

A request for seeking adjournment was received from the office of AR of the assessee today. The reason cited for seeking adjournment is that relevant papers are awaited for compilation of Paper Book. The order of CIT(A) is non-speaking & cryptic. In my considered view there is no need to furnish any Paper Book as the impugned order is unsustainable. Therefore, the request for adjournment sought by AR of the assessee is rejected. Without commenting on merits of the issue raised in this appeal, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law.

4.

The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) upon service of notice and co-operate in the appellate proceedings.

आअसं. 5385/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2014-15) (A.Y.2014-15) 5. In the result, impugned order is quashed and the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday, the 27th day of July, 2021. Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai, 3दनांक/Dated: 27/07/2021 SK, PS *ितिल�प अ4े�षत *ितिल�प अ4े�षतCopy of the Order forwarded to : *ितिल�प अ4े�षत *ितिल�प अ4े�षत 1. अपीलाथ)/The Appellant , 2. *ितवाद,/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु5(अ)/ The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु5 CIT 5. �वभागीय *ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड9 फाइल/Guard file.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →