SADANAND KARKERA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 751/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 February 2020AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to non-appearance without deciding on the merits. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merit after providing a hearing opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an ex parte order of the CIT(A) was heard. The assessee had submitted detailed objections regarding the validity of reopening and the addition made by the AO concerning credit card payments.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the merits, and whether the reopening and addition were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandra (CA)
For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gubgotra (JCIT-DR)
Hearing: 04/02/2020Pronounced: 06/02/2020

Assessee by Shri Aditya Ramchandra (CA) Revenue by Shri R.K. Gubgotra (JCIT-DR) Date of Hearing 04/02/2020 Date of Pronouncement 06/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order dated 28/11/2018 of ld. CIT(A)-40, Mumbai for the A.Y. 2010- 11 in the matter of order passed U/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

2.

It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed detailed submissions challenging validity of reopening. Our attention was invited to the details filed before the ld. CIT(A) on 23/05/2016 wherein the assessee has objected reopening and also given details for the payment made with Sadanand Karkera Vs ITO regard to credit card amounting to Rs. 3,40,857/- which includes opening balance of Rs. 87,826/- and interest and financial charges of Rs. 29,494/-. In the assessee’s submissions, it was explained as to why said amount cannot be added as income from undisclosed sources and as to why the stand taken by the A.O. is not correct.

However, without going into all these details, the ld. CIT(A) has summarily dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the plea that no body appeared before him. The ld. CIT(A) has also not given any finding on the merit of the addition so made by the A.O. In terms of provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal should be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Therefore, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh on merit after providing due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of any failure on the part of assessee, the ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass order on merits after considering the material placed on record.

Sadanand Karkera Vs ITO 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes only.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06th February, 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 →