What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case, failing which the CIT(A) can proceed based on available material.

The assessee failed to attend appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. The CIT(A) confirmed the interest disallowance made by the AO. The assessee is now in appeal before the ITAT, but again, no one appeared for the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without proper opportunity to the assessee is sustainable. The need to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

Brandzstorm India Marketing Pvt… vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. DR

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15 contest ex-parte order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (A)-16, Mumbai [CIT(A)], Appeal No.CIT(A)-16/10750/DCIT- 9(2)(1)/2016-17 dated 30/05/2019 which has confirmed the interest disallowance of Rs.2,73,759/- as made by Ld. Assessing Officer while framing an assessment u/s 143(3) on 30/11/2016.

It is discernible from impugned order that the assessee failed to attend appellate proceedings despite being provided with several Brandzstorm India Marketing Private Limited Assessment Year: 2014-15 opportunities of hearing as noted in opening para of the impugned order. In the absence of any further evidences / arguments, the disallowance was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us wherein we find similar situation and none has appeared for assessee. The Ld DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. However, keeping in view the principle of natural justice, the bench deems it fit to provide another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. Therefore, we set-aside the impugned order and restore the matter 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 his claim failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with adjudication on the basis of material on record.

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 03rd March, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 03/03/2021 Sr.PS, JaisyVarghese आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2.

BRANDZSTORM INDIA MARKETING PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9 (2)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments