M/S.FINETECH ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2242/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 August 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had avoided proceedings before the lower authorities but, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) which upheld the AO's ex-parte assessment. The assessee contended that both orders were passed without proper consideration of records.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were justified and whether the assessee was denied natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Naveenkumar Mishra, AR
Hearing: 27.08.2019Pronounced: 27.08.2019

अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Naveenkumar Mishra, AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR ुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 27.08.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 27.08.2019 AadoSa / O R D E R महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane in 17 dated 22.12.2017. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Ward 1(1), Kalyan (in short ITO/ AO) for AY 2013-14 vide dated 29.02.2016, under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2 | P a g e 2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Sr. DR stated that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and for this assessee has raised the following ground No. 1: -

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in (aw the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding action of Ld. AO by passing an ex- parte order u/s. 144 of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.

3.

The assessee has also raised the ground on merits, which read as under: -

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law the Hon’ble CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO of making addition of Rs.1,88,94,000/- by estimating the NP @ 5% of Turnover of Rs. 37,78,79,104/- and rejecting the books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.”

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →