SHIR. MANISH JADAVJI CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-53, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 194/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 January 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking ex parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex parte for non-appearance and lack of submissions. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowance of losses, citing modifications in client codes as indicative of booking losses.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte, non-speaking order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

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, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Respondent: Ms. Joti Lakshmi Nayak
Hearing: 28/01/2020Pronounced: 28/01/2020

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-53, Mumbai dated 12.10.2018 for assessment year 2009-10 which in turn has arisen from order of Assessing Officer passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 26.12.2016.

2.

None appeared for the assessee. At the outset, we noticed that the CIT(A) has passed an ex parte, non-speaking order vide para 4.2 and 4.3 of the impugned order, which reads as under :

“4.2 The appeal has been e-filed on 17.1.2007. The notice for hearing on 16.8.18 was issued through email as well as post at the addresses mentioned in the appeal memo. On no response, another notice was issued through email and through assessing officer for hearing on 5.10.2018. The assessing officer intimated and forwarded the service of notice. The notice was physically served on the assessee on 20-09-2018. There was no response to the notice. Further, no submission or paper book was filed till date. It is presumed that the appellant is not serious in prosecuting this appeal.

4.3 It is noted that the appellant was provided with the details of trades in which client code was modified. The appellant has not provided details of how the instructions for trade were given, who received the instructions. He has not explained how and why client code were modified. These are not mere punching errors when at best one or two digits may have got punched incorrectly. The error is over several digits. Further the instances are not few but several in numbers. Taken cumulatively, this indicates booking of losses. Such losses have been disallowed by the assessing officer. The disallowance is upheld. The ground of appeal is dismissed.”

3. We noted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee without passing a speaking order just in the absence of the assessee, i.e. for default of the assessee. The learned DR agreed that the matter can be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee and also for passing a speaking order on merits. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th January, 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 →