PANKAJ BHANWARLAL DHADDHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (2)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 346/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 September 2020AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without securing the assessee's presence or written submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an ex parte order by the CIT(A) which enhanced a disallowance on unverifiable purchases. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) order was passed without a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was validly passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The validity of the reopening of assessment was also a ground raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Shri

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Hearing: 09/09/2020Pronounced: 09/09/2020

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

This appeal in for A.Y.2010-11 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 in appeal No.CIT(A)-30/19(2)(5)/10903/2016-17 dated 30/03/2016 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated

Shri Pankaj Bhanwarlal Dhaddha 29/02/2016 by the ld. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(5), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee also urged before the Bench to set aside this order of Ld. CIT(A) to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

We find that the assessee had raised various grounds before us including challenging the validity of reopening of assessment in the instant case. We find that the ld. AO had made disallowance at the rate of 12.5% on account of unverifiable purchases made from certain parties by the assessee in view of the fact that the sales made by the assessee were not doubted by the ld. AO. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had enhanced the said disallowance to 100% of the value of purchases after issuing enhancement notice to the assessee.

4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the order of Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without securing the presence of the assessee or his written submissions on record. Therefore, we deem it fit and appropriate to set aside this appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh and pass a speaking order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) diligently and participate in the appellate proceedings and co-operate in expeditious disposal of the appeal before him and not to seek adjournments , if any, except due to bonafide or Shri Pankaj Bhanwarlal Dhaddha exceptional reasons. Hence all the issues raised by the assessee are left open. The assessee is also given liberty to raise additional grounds, if any, before the ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

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

Order pronounced in open Court on 09/09/2020.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →