PUSHPANJALI REALTORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 199/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 December 2020AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution. The ex-parte order was set aside as it was passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) also proceeded to decide the appeal on merits by reproducing findings from a previous assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. Whether the CIT(A) can decide an appeal on merits by merely reproducing previous findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

Hearing: 22.12.2020Pronounced: 29.12.2020

O R D E R श्री विकास अिस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के द्िारा PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 26.10.2018 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of CIT(A) inter alia on the ground that the order has been passed in ex-parte proceedings.

4.

Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that notice of hearing of the appeal was sent to the assessee on two occasions i.e. 12.07.2018 and again on 24.09.2018 by the CIT(A). The notices were duly served on line, however, the assessee failed to respond to the notices.

5.

We have heard the submissions made by the learned Departmental Representative and have examined the orders of the authorities below. The assessee is a real estate developer and trader in immovable properties. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition/ disallowance of expenses in respect of Sevanagar projects aggregating to ₹9,78,80,047/-. Aggrieved, by the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceedings primarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution. It is a well settled legal proposition that the CIT(A) cannot

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →