Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN,
Date of Hearing – 01.08.2019 Date of Order – 16.08.2019
O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M.
Captioned appeal by the assessee arises out of order dated 10th October 2016, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–21, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009–10.
In ground no.1, the assessee has challenged the validity of the ex–parte order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
2 Sona Organic Farms Pvt. Ltd.
Whereas, grounds no.2 and 3 are on the merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Brief facts are, for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee company filed its return of income on 30th September 2009, declaring total income of ` 2,75,397. Originally, the assessment in assessee’s case was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") vide order dated 21st December 2011, determining the total income at ` 6,65,800. Subsequently, the assessment was re–opened under section 147 of the Act and an order under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 26th March 2015, determining the total income at ` 3,41,21,820. The variation of total income was due to the addition of ` 3,38,46,425, made under section 68 of the Act. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. The appeal filed by the assessee was disposed of ex–parte by learned Commissioner (Appeals) sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present for the assessee in spite of issuance of notice through registered post with A/D. In view of the aforesaid, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex
3 Sona Organic Farms Pvt. Ltd. parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material on record.
We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the last date of hearing i.e., 26th September 2016, assessee’s Authorised Representative filed a letter seeking adjournment for seven days due to a death in the family of the arguing Counsel. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the request of the Authorised Representative proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex–parte. In our view, when the Authorised Representative of the assessee was seeking a short adjournment of seven days due to a death in the family, learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have accepted his request instead of disposing of the appeal ex–parte. Therefore, in the interest of fair play and justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore all the issues raised by the assessee in the present appeal back to his file for adjudication on merit after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, we also direct the assessee to co–operate with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in finalising the proceedings. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
4 Sona Organic Farms Pvt. Ltd.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.08.2019