AADI DREAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6036/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 September 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices and represent its case properly.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was disposed of ex-parte, leading to the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 10 lakh as unexplained cash credit. The assessee contended that it was deprived of a proper hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present its case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

For Appellant: Ms. Poonam Mehta
For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

Aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 26th June 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–20, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2013–14.

2.

At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, assessee’s appeal was disposed off ex–parte by the first appellate authority, as a result of which the assessee was deprived from contesting on merit the addition made of ` 10 lakh as unexplained

2 M/s. Aadi Dream Properties Pvt. Ltd. cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Therefore, she submitted, the issue may be restored back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding on merit after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

The learned Departmental Representative, though, justified the ex–parte disposal of the appeal, however, he submitted that one more opportunity can be granted to the assessee to represent its case before learned Commissioner (Appeals).

4.

I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the appeal filed by the assessee before learned Commissioner (Appeals) was decided ex–parte confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act. It appears from the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) that a number of opportunities were provided to the assessee to represent its case, however, the assessee did not appear. Per–contra, it is the case of the assessee that sufficient opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. Considering the limited submission of the assessee to grant one more opportunity to represent the case before learned first appellate authority, I am inclined to restore the issue to learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and 3 M/s. Aadi Dream Properties Pvt. Ltd.

restore the issue to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merit after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, I direct the assessee to comply to the notice of hearing to be issued by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and represent its case in a proper manner. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.09.2019

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →