Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सुं./ (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Siddhi Vinayak Homes The Income Tax Officer, Ground, 220-Tara Mansion, Circle 12(1)(1), Now known बनाम/ 11 Khetwadi main Road, as the income tax officer Vs. Mumbai 17(3)(3) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./PAN No. AAVFS8880K अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri GP Mehta, AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DR ुिवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 18.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 18.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal of the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-28, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-28/IT-285/ITO-12(1)(1)/2013-14 2 | P a g e Siddhivinayak Homes order dated 27.09.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1)(1), Mumbai (in short ITO / AO) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 24.01.2014, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the order of CIT(A) and stated that the order of CIT(A) is totally ex-parte despite the fact that the appeal was fixed for hearing before CIT(A) on 08.01.2016, 19.06.2017 and 16.09.2018 but no response has been come from assessee’s side and appellate order was passed on 27.09.2018. Even the Ld. Counsel pointed out that the order of CIT(A) is totally non- speaking and not discussed any facts. The disallowance has been confirmed by the CIT(A) on presumptions, assumptions, conjunctures and surmises and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee and in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, Ld. Counsel requested that let the order of First Appellate Authority i.e., the order of CIT(A) be set aside and appeal be remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication.