Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) relevant to the A.Y.2010- 11.
The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LA. CIT(A)-24 has erred in completing the appeal proceeding ex-parte and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. A.Y.2010-11
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LA. C1T(A) has erred in confirming the action of LA. Assessing Officer in disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 10(1) read with sec 2(1A)(a) amounting to Rs.7,92,600/- in respect of rent from agricultural land.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CJT(A) has erred in confirming the action of IA. Assessing Officer in disallowing deduction u/s 24(b) amounting to Rs.3,17,672/-.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of 14. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.21,321/- to income from other sources u/s 14A disregarding the fact that the appellant-has not claimed any expenditure under the head income from other sources.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Department and has gone through the case carefully. We find that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy in absence of the assessee and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. However, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. On appraisal of the order of the CIT(A) dated 13.06.2019 passed by the CIT(A) we find that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy in absence of the assessee/Representative of the assessee without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the accordance with law. A proper and A.Y.2010-11 reasonable opportunity is required to be given to the assessee before the deciding the matter of controversy in accordance with law.
For this proposition we place reliance upon the following case laws. (1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on all the issues and restore the matter before the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/07/2021 Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (AMARJIT SINGH) लेखध सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated : 07/07/2021 Vijay Pal Singh (Sr. PS)