NITI DESAI - LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HIRALAL G. DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 16(2)(4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee is granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee contested a disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 2.34 Lacs. The assessee failed to attend appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), and the decision was made based on written submissions.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A) and whether the disallowance of depreciation was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
By way of this appeal, the assessee contest disallowance of depreciation of Rs.2.34 Lacs as made by Ld. AO while framing an assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 23/12/2016. The disallowance, upon confirmation by learned first appellate authority, is under challenge before us.
Upon perusal of impugned order, it is noted that the assessee failed to attend appellate proceedings and the adjudication was done on the basis of written submissions filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR, on the other hand, pleaded for confirmation of appellate order. 3. Keeping in view the principle of natural justice, the bench deems it fit to provide another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before learned first appellate authority. Therefore, impugned order is set- aside and restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate its claim failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with adjudication on the basis of material on record. 4. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravish Sood) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 11/03/2021 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड�फाईल / Guard File आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026