M/S.SHAH SHANTILAL & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5997/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2020AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that although opportunities were provided, the assessee could not appear. Considering the additions/disallowances made by the AO, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The grounds raised included the CIT(A) not providing sufficient opportunity to be heard and errors in confirming the carry forward of losses and disallowing short-term capital loss.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and whether the disallowance of losses and capital loss claims were justified.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra
For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar
Hearing: 19.02.2020Pronounced: 30.09.2020

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -28, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 10.08.2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

Assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in allowing the carry forward of loss of (A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. Shah Shantilal & Co Rs.5,72,616/- instead of Rs.33,07,872/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the claim of Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 31,98,919/- without considering facts and circumstances of the case.

4) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal

.”

3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

4. Ld. DR has no serious objection in remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that the even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions assessee could not appear. Considering the totality of facts and submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, 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

(A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. Shah Shantilal & Co 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.

6.

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

7.

Before parting, we noticed that this appeal was heard on 19.02.2020 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →