SHRI. UMESHBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2381/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 January 2021AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that notices were allegedly sent to the old address, not the new one provided by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,18,700/- in respect of cash transactions. The assessee claimed this was a cash loan, but the AO rejected the submission. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid, considering the alleged non-service of notices on the assessee at the correct address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHYShri Umeshbhai Khimjibhai Patel,

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh

आदेश/ ORDER

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai ( in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 14/02/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring total income of Rs.8,09,539/- from house property, partnership firm and other sources. In proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,18,700/- in respect of cash transactions amounting to Rs.1,18,700/-. The contention of the assessee is that the aforesaid amount advanced by the assessee to M/s. Ahuja Group is cash loan. The Assessing Officer rejected the submissions made by assessee and made addition of the aforesaid amount. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/12/2017 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act , the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceedings confirmed the addition.

3.

Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and submitted that notice of hearing of the appeal was sent to the assessee on three occasions by the CIT(A), however, the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A).. The CIT(A) was left with no option but to decide the appeal in an ex-parte proceeding. In the absence of any contrary material the CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

4.

Submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative heard, orders of authorities below examined. The assessee in appeal has assailed the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A). The contention of assessee is that notices were never served on the assessee. The assessee had mentioned new address in Form No.35, whereas the notices were allegedly sent to old address mentioned in the assessment order. Taking into consideration entirety of facts, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law.

5.

The notice of hearing of appeal be sent to the assessee by the CIT(A) on the address mentioned in Form No.35. The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) on receipt of notice and co-operate in the first appellate proceedings.

6.

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on Friday, the 8th day of January, 2021.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →