M/S.AGROHA UDYOG INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX WARD 1(1), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2086/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 November 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed decided the case without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for multiple assessment years. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) decided the matter without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi Rathod (AR)
Hearing: 19/10/2020Pronounced: 11/11/2020

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the above mentioned appeals against the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 03, Thane [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Ys.2009-10, 2011-12 & 2010-11 respectively. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in the present appeal, therefore, all the appeals are taken up together for adjudication.

2.

We have heard the argument 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 , 2087 & 2089/M/2018 A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2010-11 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 17.02.2017, 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.

3.

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) 4. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on all the issues and remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the AO. AO is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law.

ITA. Nos. 2087/M/2018 & 2089/M/2018 5. The facts of the present case are quite similar to the fact of the case as narrated above while deciding the therefore, there is no need to repeat the same. However, the figure is different. The matter of controversy is also the same. The finding given above in ITA. No.2086/M/2018 is quite applicable to the facts of the present case as , 2087 & 2089/M/2018 A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2010-11 mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, we allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →