Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
./2019 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) ITA no.7568/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Paresh Vanitlal Shah 1402, 14th Floor, Centre Point ……………. Appellant 90FT Road, Mulund (East) Mumbai 400 081 PAN – AAEPS6162P v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–15(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Ms. Radha Halbe Revenue by : Shri Avneesh Tiwari Date of Hearing – 03.01.2020 Date of Order – 08.01.2020
O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. The Aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging two separate orders, both dated 11th October 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–40, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment years 2009–10 and 2011–12.
Though, the aforesaid appeals were fixed today for considering assessee’s applications for fixing an early date of hearing, however, on the consent of the learned Authorised Representative as well as the 2 Paresh Vanitlal Shah learned Departmental Representative, these appeals were take up for hearing on substantive basis.
Brief facts are, the assessee, an individual, carries on business in wholesale trading in ferrous and non–ferrous metals through its proprietary concern M/s. Padmashri Metal Industries. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had filed its returns of income in regular course and the returns of income so filed were processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, that the assessee has availed accommodation entries from the hawala operators by way of bogus purchase bills, the Assessing Officer re–opened the assessments under section 147 of the Act and ultimately passed the assessment orders making certain additions on account of bogus purchase. Against the assessment orders so passed, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority.
As could be seen from the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the appeals filed by the assessee were disposed off ex–parte sustaining the additions made by the A.O.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The only submission made by the learned Authorised
3 Paresh Vanitlal Shah Representative before us is, since learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and disposed off the appeals ex–parte, the issue may be restored back to the file of learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication. The learned Departmental Representative has not raised any serious objections against the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. Keeping in view the submissions of the parties and also the fact that the appeals filed by the assessee were disposed off ex–parte by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, we are inclined to restore the issues raised in the present appeals to the file of learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, for ensuring effective disposal of appeals on merits, we direct the assessee to appear before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a copy of this order to obtain a date of hearing and appear before him on the scheduled date for representing his case. With the aforesaid observations, the grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.