Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Prakash K Jotwani, 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)-49, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT(A)- 49/IT-297/2013-14 dated 04.10.2017. The Assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-42, Mumbai (in short
2 | P a g e DCIT/ITO/ AO) for AY 2003-04 vide dated 19.02.2013, under section 144 read with section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
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 circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A)-49 erred in passing an ex-parte order without appreciation of the facts of the case decided in earlier years in assessee's own case.”
The assessee has also raised the grounds on merits, which read as under: -
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO as well as ClT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the issue regarding gross profit addition, unaccounted rent and service charges were already decided by different appellate authorities at different stage and ignoring the same. A.O. made the addition and same has been confirmed by CIT(A).
Without prejudice to the above ground the appellant raised the following grounds:
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ClT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs1,69,24,668/- on account of low G.P. made by the A.O.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.4,80,000/- on account of kitchenware and barista sale made by AO.
5 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.777,866/- on account unreconciled stock made by the A.O.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the 011(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,64,062/- on account of alleged unaccounted rent and service charges made by A.O..”
The learned Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned DR agreed that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and the order of CIT(A) is not a speaking order as he has confirmed the findings of the AO as it is without considering the records or material. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that even the order of the AO is ex-parte. The learned Sr. DR stated that the AO as well as CIT(A) has allowed many opportunities to the assessee by issuing notices for different dates fixing the assessment proceedings or the appellate proceedings, as the case may be, but the assessee has not availed the opportunity. We noted that it is a fact that the assessee has avoided the proceedings before the AO as well as before CIT(A) but in the interest of natural justice, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee will present itself as and when call by the AO for framing assessment and will provide documents and evidences as authorized under law. Hence, the