PREMSAGAR RAO,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2358/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 September 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without subjective satisfaction on whether the assessee had shown reasonable cause for seeking adjournments. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing. The assessee had raised grounds regarding principles of natural justice, unaccounted sales, unexplained investment, and interest charges.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-36, Mumbai dated 30.01.2018 for Assessment Year 2012-13.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act without providing the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice and the same may be set aside.

2.

The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18,17,351/- on the basis of AIR information by treating the same as unaccounted sales without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the addition of Rs.18,17,351/- is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred confirming the addition of Rs.13,00,778/- under section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment without Mum 2018-Prem Sagar Rao.

appreciating facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the addition of Rs.13,00,778/- under section 69 of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest under section 234A. 234B. 234C & 234D of the Act without appreciating the fact that Appellant denies his liability to the same. 2. At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee has raised specific ground of appeal that no fair and proper opportunity was given to the assessee by ld CIT(A), vide ground no.1 of the appeal.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue submits that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity as recorded by ld. CIT(A) in para-4 of his order. The assessee failed to attained the proceeding and to substantiate the ground of appeal, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has no option except to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record. In the rejoinder submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has not decided on various grounds of appal on merit, therefore, the matter needs fresh consideration at the level of FAA.

4. We have considered the submission of both the parties and gone through the order of ld. CIT(A). We have noted that the assessee has filed the Mum 2018-Prem Sagar Rao. present appeal on 05.06.2015. The ld. CIT(A) allegedly issued various notice as recorded by him in para-4 of his order:

Date of issue Date of Remarks of notice hearing 18.01.2017 14.02.2017 No attendance, adjournment letter dated 10.02.2017 was filed. 27.03.2017 02.05.2017 No attendance, adjournment letter dated 03.05.2017 was filed. 23.05.2017 19.06.2017 No attendance, adjournment letter was filed seeking for adjournment till July 2017. 12.12.2017 28.12.2017 No attendance, adjournment letter dated 22.12.2017 was filed. Next date of hearing was fixed on 05.01.2018. 22.12.2017 05.01.2018 On 05.01.2017 the authorized representative of the appellant appeared but filed only condonation of delay. Any submission regarding the case was not made. The case was adjourned to 30.01.2018. 05.01.2018 30.01.2018 No attendance, adjournment letter dated 29.01.2018 was filed.

5.

On perusal of the aforesaid dates of hearing, we find that the ld. AR of the assessee appeared on 05.01.2018 and case was adjourned for 30.01.2018. On 30.01.2018, the ld. CIT(A) noted that none appeared on behalf of assessee, however, an application for adjournment was filed in advance on 29.01.2018. The ld. CIT(A) has not recorded the reasons/grounds of seeking for adjournment in his order. The ld. CIT(A) further not recorded, if the assessee has shown sufficient/valid reasons for seeking adjournment or not. The ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal on 30.01.2018 itself. In our view in absence of subjective satisfaction, if the assessee has shown reasonable cause or not the denial of further opportunity to the assessee was not justified. We have further noted that Mum 2018-Prem Sagar Rao. appeal was pending before the ld. CIT(A) since March 2015 and it was decided on the day itself i.e. 30.01.2018. Considering the fact that ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in absence of assessee, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide all the issues afresh.

6.

Needless to order that before deciding all the issues, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant fair and proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully co-operate and to furnish necessary evidence to the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is further directed to approach the ld. CIT(A) within two month from receipt of the order for fixing the date of hearing and will not seek adjournment without any valid reasons.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05/09/2019.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →