Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
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.
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/.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject the same may be deleted.”
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.
The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand objected to the contents of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.
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.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2021