VIJAY BABULAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT 19 (2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7109/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 July 2021AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found substantial merit in the assessee's submission regarding the lack of opportunity. The principles of 'audi alteram partem' were invoked, and the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was disposed of by the CIT(A) without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee received a notice for hearing on 23-10-2019 via email on 19-10-2019, but upon attending, was informed the appeal had already been decided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly afforded the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing an order, especially when enhancing the income. The procedural fairness of the appellate proceedings was questioned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar , DR

O R D E R Per: Saktijit Dey, JM This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 23-10-2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Though, the assessee has raised a number of grounds in the memorandum of appeal; however, the primary grievance of the assessee is against disposal of appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals) without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard.

2 ITA 7109/Mum/2019

3.

We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. The chronology of events leading to the disposal of assessee’s appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals), as narrated before us by learned authorised representative of the assessee, is as under:- S.No Particulars 11/07/2019 19/07/2019 The appellant's representative appeared before the 1 learned CIT(A) and filed details containing Pages No.1 to7J. The CIT(A) called for Packing List in respect of one of the invoice. The case was adjourned to 19/08/2019. 19/08/2019 The appellant requested that since other cases of the 2 appellant were also fixed on 20/08/2019, the same may be fixed on 20/08/2019. 3 20/08/2019 The cases for A.Y.2011-12, A.Y.2013-14 and A.Y.2014-15 were fixed on 23/08/2019, the CIT(A) adjourned the case to 23/08/2019. The appellant filed a letter of an adjournment as per the direction of the CIT(A). 23/08/2019 4 23/08/2019 The appellant's representative attended with the details however no hearing was taken in place in respect of any of the assessment year and apparently it was informed that CIT(A) is busy with some work. The clerk informed that new date in all four cases is fixed on 05/12/2019 and new Notice will be issued. 5 12/09/2019 19/09/2019 Though on the last hearing case was adjourned to 05/12/2019, the new Notice seems to have been issued only for one year, The said notices were received bv email only on 19/10/2019 at 7:41PM. which was Saturday evening. A screen shot of the Notice received is attached herewith along with attachment. The appellant could send the Notice to the Authorised Representative only on 22/10/2019 since 21/10/2019 was Election day of Maharashtra Assembly. On 23/10/2019 when the representative went to the office of the CIT(A), he was informed that order has already been passed. No Notice in respect of enhancement u/s.251(1)(a) 6 was issued to the appellant. Even the Notice of enhancement is not available on the Portal of the 3 ITA 7109/Mum/2019

Income Tax Department. The learned CIT(A) has also not mentioned in the order, the date on which the so called Notice u/s.251(1)(a) was issued. Hence no Notice was issued and no opportunity was provided to the appellant to rebut the enhancement of the order of AO. It may also be stated Notice of enhancement was issued on 25/11/2019 i.e. after the date of order passed by the CIT(A) in respect of the other three years.

4.

On a perusal of materials placed before us, we find substantial merit in the submissions of learned authorised representative of the assessee. As could be seen from the chronology of events noted above, the appeal was finally fixed for hearing on 19-09-2019. However, we have noted that on 19-10-2019, the assessee received a notice through email fixing the date of hearing on 23-10- 2019. But, when assessee’s authorised representative went to the office of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 23-10-2019, he was informed that the appeal has already been disposed of. Learned authorised representative has also submitted before us that without issuing a notice of enhancement as mandated under section 251(1)(a) of the Act, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has enhanced the income of the assessee.

5. At this stage, we do not intend to dig deep into the allegations made by the assessee regarding lack of opportunity. Suffice to say, Indian judicial system is founded on the golden rules of audi alteram partem. In other words, an aggrieved party should not be condemned without a fair hearing. Upon careful consideration of material facts, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to represent his case before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)

4 ITA 7109/Mum/2019 and restore the matter back to her file for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co- operate in finalisation of the appellate proceedings before learned Commissioner (Appeals).

5.

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 26/07/2021. Sd/- sd/- (PRAMOD KUMAR ) (SAKTIJIT DEY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dt : 26/07/2021 Pavanan Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT concerned 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File /True copy/ By Order

More judgments on Section 251(1)(a)

All 935 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →