INDIGO PRESS (INDIA) PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3482/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 August 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, which is not justifiable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income, and during scrutiny, discrepancies were found between its 26AS statement and Profit & Loss account. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 4,52,686/- to the income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating the grounds on merits and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 08/08/2019Pronounced: 08/08/2019

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2012- 13.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Commissioner of Income-tax(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. A.Y.2012-13

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Commissioner of Income-tax(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating the grounds on merits of the case.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and even in the absence of the Authorized Representative of the appellant the CIT(A) ought to have referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer to clarify the discrepancy in the 26AS as pointed out in the grounds of appeal that there was error on the part of the Tax Deductor instead of confirming the enhancement of the income in the hands of the appellant which was added by the Assessing Officer without granting the appellant any opportunity or issuing any show cause to rebut the addition.

4. The appellant craves leave to add to alter or amend the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 27.09.2012 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.99,34,540/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee company was engaged in the business of printing and publishing. On verification, found discrepancies were found between the 26AS statement and Profit & Loss account, therefore, notice was given and after the reply of the assessee, the discrepancies in sum of Rs.4,52,686/- was not reconcile, therefore, the same was added to the income of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the addition, therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before us.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →