CHAITANYA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 30 (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5604/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2020AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear despite multiple opportunities. The assessee's grounds of appeal included disallowance of provision for site completion expenses and outstanding service tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HONBLE

For Respondent: Shri Padmapani Bora
Hearing: 06.02.2020Pronounced: 30.09.2020

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 41, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 02.07.2018 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

Assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - 2.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal Ex- Parte against assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.

(A.Y: 2012-13) M/s. Chaitanya Enterprises 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject the learned Assessing officer erred in disallowing expenses of Rs.4,00,000/- as provision for site completion expenses. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject the learned Assessing officer erred in disallowing Rs.22,96,270 being outstanding service Tax as on 31.3.2011 u/s43B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject the CIT (A) erred in upholding the same & the addition made be deleted. 4) The appellant craves leave to add/modify, delete the grounds of appeal on or before date of hearing.”

We have heard Ld. DR, perused the orders of the authorities below.

3.

On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions assessee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical 4. purpose.

(A.Y: 2012-13) M/s. Chaitanya Enterprises Before parting, we noticed that this appeal was heard on 06.02.2020 5. and the pronouncement is delayed due to lockdown in view of COVID-19 pandemic. The pronouncement is as per Rule 34(5) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision vide orders dated 15.04.2020 and 15.06.2020 extending the time bound periods specified by Hon'ble High Court by removing the period under lockdown. This aspect was also dealt with in detail by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case of DCIT v. JSW Steel Vide order dated 14.05.2020 in ITA.No. 6264/Mum/2018.

Order pronounced on 30.09.2020 as per Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules by placing the pronouncement list in the notice board.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →