M/S- R.S. BUILDERS&DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, WARD-28(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4161/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 December 2020AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and non-speaking, likely due to the ex-parte disposal. It was held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, a builder and developer, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer made an addition for notional rental income on unsold flats. The assessee appealed this to the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A) was justified and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

For Appellant: Shri Khusiram Jadhawani
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 11th April 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–26, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2013–14.

2.

In ground no.1, the assessee has challenged the ex–parte disposal of the appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Whereas, in ground no.2 the assessee has challenged the addition of notional rental income amounting to ` 6,46,800.

2 M/s. R.S. Builders & Developers

3.

Brief facts are, the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of builders and developers. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 27th September 2013 declaring total income of ` 28,96,170. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer computed notional rent on unsold stock of flats and added back an amount of ` 6,46,000, after allowing deduction under section 24 of the Act.

4.

Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. However, due to non– compliance by the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) disposed off the appeal ex–parte by dismissing it.

5.

I have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it appears that since the assessee did not appear on the date the appeal was fixed for hearing, he proceeded to decide the appeal ex– parte and while doing so, he dismissed the appeal. On a reading of the conclusion of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in Para–5 of his order, I find that it is cryptic and non–speaking order. This could be due to the reason of non–appearance by the assessee. However, before me, leaned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that non–appearance by the assessee was not deliberate but due to non–receipt of hearing

3 M/s. R.S. Builders & Developers notice. Without entering into the controversy as to for whose fault the appeal was decided ex–parte, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be best served if the assessee is given an opportunity to explain its case before the first appellate authority which could not be done due to ex–parte disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to his file for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further, the assessee is directed to co–operate in finalizing the proceedings by appearing before the first appellate authority. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.12.2020

More judgments on Section 24

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →