SACHIN SUDHAKAR NAVALE,THANE vs. ACIT CIR 3, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3490/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 September 2019AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income tax return was significantly increased by the Assessing Officer due to disallowance of expenditure and deductions. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 24(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi
For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 27th February 2017, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Aurangabad, pertaining to the assessment year 2012–13.

2.

Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual and carries on business as authorised dealer of ACC Cement through his Proprietary

2 Sachin Sudhakar Navale concern M/s. Sachin Traders. The assessee is also engaged in the business of manufacturing ready–mix concrete (RMC). For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 26th September 2012, declaring total income of ` 17,89,840. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 17th March 2015, determining the total income at ` 6,20,01,720. The variation between the total income returned and total income determined was due to part disallowance of expenditure incurred under various heads and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 24(a) of the Act. The assessee challenged the aforesaid disallowances in an appeal filed before the first appellate authority. The appeal filed by the assessee was decided ex–parte by the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). While doing so, he sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

3.

Explaining the reason for non–appearance before learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the date of hearing, learned Authorised Representative submitted, though, on earlier occasions the assessee had filed applications seeking adjournment, however, on the last date of hearing since the assessee was out of station, he was unable to either attend the hearing or seek adjournment. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, the non–appearance before learned

3 Sachin Sudhakar Navale Commissioner (Appeals) on the date of hearing of appeal was due to bona fide reason. Thus, he submitted, a fair opportunity may be granted to the assessee to contest the additions on merits before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) through supporting evidences.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative, though, justified the ex–parte disposal of the appeal due to repeated non–appearance by the assessee, however, he submitted, a last opportunity can be given to the assessee to represent his case before learned Commissioner (Appeals).

5.

We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. It appears from the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, several opportunities were given to the assessee starting from 14th October 2016 till the last date of hearing on 20th February 2017, the assessee either did not appear or sought adjournment. Thus, learned Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to dispose off the appeal ex–parte by sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer. However, as could be seen from the facts on record, the disallowance of various expenses claimed by the assessee are basically for the reason that the assessee could not furnish the supporting evidences to prove the claim of expenditure. Similarly, a part disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 24(a) of the Act was due to the fact

4 Sachin Sudhakar Navale that such deduction was claimed on rent received on land. Admittedly, the appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) was decided ex– parte, meaning thereby, the assessee could not contest the issues in effective manner. Considering the above, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to prove his case on merits through proper supporting evidence. To facilitate the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to his file for de novo adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we direct the assessee to effectively respond to the notice of hearing to be issued by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and represent his case properly. We make it clear, in case of any further lapse on the part of the assessee in representing his case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) would be at liberty to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of material on record and in accordance with law. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

5 Sachin Sudhakar Navale

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.09.2019

More judgments on Section 24(a)

All 318 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →