SHRI. PRAVIN MEHTA LEGAL HEIR OF THE LATE SAROJ PRAVIN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4993/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 February 2021AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal ex parte on the first hearing without affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard, especially considering the assessee had died and was substituted by a legal heir. This violated the principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer added back a significant amount as undisclosed income. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was against the ex parte disposal by the first appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC ” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

For Respondent: Smt. Smita Verma (DR)
Pronounced: 25/02/2021

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 10-06-2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. However, considering the fact that the primary grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of his appeal by the 2 ITA 4993/Mum/2019 first appellate authority, I proceeded to hear and dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of materials on record.

3.

Briefly, the facts are that the deceased assessee was an individual. For the assessment year under dispute, she filed her return of income on 05-11-2009 declaring total income of Rs.1,73,470/-. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that certain cash deposits have been made in the bank account as well as interest income has not been offered to tax, called upon the assessee to furnish the reason for not doing so. Though, the assessee furnished her explanation on the query raised by the Assessing Officer; however, he was not convinced. Therefore, he proceeded to complete the assessment by adding back an amount of Rs.18,72,259/- as undisclosed income. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid addition, as it appears, the addition was sustained in appeal. Be that as it may, on the basis of the aforesaid addition, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately passed an order imposing penalty of Rs.1,03,651/- under the said provision. Though, the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty before the first appellate authority; however, by the impugned order learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty.

4.

I have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. As could be seen from grounds 1 to 3, the primary grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of the appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals). On perusal of impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), I find that a single notice of hearing dated 29-05-2019 was issued to the assessee. Since, there was no compliance to the said notice, learned Commissioner

3 ITA 4993/Mum/2019 (Appeals) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte without affording any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As can be seen from the facts on record, during the pendency of proceedings before the first appellate authority, the assessee had died and has been substituted by her legal heir. This could be a reason for non-appearance of the assessee on the date fixed for hearing. Therefore, in my considered opinion, learned Commissioner (Appeals) should not have disposed of the appeal ex parte on the first date of hearing itself. Thus, there is clear violation of rules of natural justice as the assessee has not been provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues back to his file for fresh adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 25/02/2021. Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated : 25/ 02/2021. Pavanan, Sr.P.S (on contract)

4 ITA 4993/Mum/2019

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →