M/S SAI GRANITE EXPORTERS DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8056/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2021AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not represented its case before the lower authorities. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was called for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. The ITAT decided to proceed ex-parte after hearing the Departmental Representative and reviewing the available material.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order and the upholding of the rejection of books of accounts and income estimation by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

The aforesaid appeal preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 14th October 2019, passed by the learned CIT(A)–6, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2013–14.

2.

When the appeal was called for hearing neither the assessee nor any of its authorized representatives was present on behalf of the respondent assessee to represent the case. There is no application for adjournment of hearing either. Consequently, we deem it fit and 2 Sai Granite Exporters Developers P. Ltd.

appropriate to proceed to dispose off the appeal ex–parte qua the appellant assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.

3. The assessee has filed the present appeal on the following grounds of appeal:– “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer erred in passing order ex-parte u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing sufficient opportunity being heard & violated the rule of natural justice and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer without correct appreciation of the fact of the case and law on the subject. Therefore, the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act may be quashed.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer erred in rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3) and estimating the total income of the previous year at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by making assessment u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the estimation total income at Rs.1,00,00,000/.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject the same may be deleted.”

4.

As it transpires from the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee cited supra, it is the allegation of the assessee that during the first appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) has issued ex–parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violated the rules of natural justice and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer without correct appreciation of the facts of the case

3 Sai Granite Exporters Developers P. Ltd. and law on the subject and, hence, the assessee, by virtue of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, prayed that the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act by the learned CIT(A) may be quashed.

5.

The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand objected to the contents of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.

6.

Having considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and having perused the material on record, we notice that the assessee has not represented the case before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would meet by providing one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and direct him to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding the issues raised by the assessee on merit. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the learned CIT(A) promptly and assist the first appellate authority for the disposal of the appeal. With the aforesaid directions, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4 Sai Granite Exporters Developers P. Ltd.

7.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2021

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →