JAGANNATH STEEL CO.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6593/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 August 2019AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that although opportunities were given, the assessee could not appear. Considering the additions made, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10. The assessee argued that the assessment reopening was wrong and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah
For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Hearing: 21.06.2019Pronounced: 28.08.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -28, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 28.08.2017 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

Assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act was wrongly done, though there was no escapement of Income as envisaged under section 147 of the Act.

(A.Y: 2009-10) Sri Jagannath Steel Co 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing an exparte order. The order is required to be set aside to give opportunity to rebut the additions. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions made on account of loans taken from genuine parties amounting to Rs.45,00,000/- 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A O did not provide the basis on which he arrived at opinion that the parties are belonged to Pravin Kumar Jain and that the parties are not having credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions. No proper opportunities were provided 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A O did not provide sufficient time to produce the details nor did provide any evidences to establish that loans were accommodation entries. In fact the appellant wanted full facts to rebut the case but no such opportunities were provided and assessment was completed hurriedly. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) as well as A O did not take cognizance of the details filed such as bank statements of both parties, confirmations, full address alongwith PAN, TDS deducted and ITRs of the parties showing sizable income to show creditworthiness. 7) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, substitute and/ or cancel any of the ground of the appeal.”

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

Ld. DR has no serious objection in remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that the even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on two or three occasions assessee could not appear. However, written submissions were filed in dock. Considering the submissions and the additions/disallowance made

(A.Y: 2009-10) Sri Jagannath Steel Co by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 28th August, 2019

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →