Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ACVPJ8183G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Aditya Nemani Revenue by: Shri V. Tripathi (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 29/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2013- 14.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the `Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal on the plea that the appellant had filed the appeal on the plea that the appellant had filed the appeal on the plea that the appellant had filed the appeal manually which is in contravention of Rule 45 of Income Tax Act, 1962.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the appellant for making an addition of Rs.2,58,93,218/- by treating the cash deposit in bank as alleged undisclosed income, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal.” A.Y. 2013-14
3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. In fact, the Ld. Representative of the assessee did not argue the case on merits but argued on this point that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy in absence of the assessee and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. On appraisal of the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 16.01.2019, we find that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy in absence of the assessee/Representative of the Assessee without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the accordance with law. A proper and reasonable opportunity is required to be given to the assessee before deciding the matter of controversy in accordance with law.
4. For this proposition we place reliance upon the following case laws. (1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC)
5. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on all the issues and remit the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving a proper/reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law.