Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-53, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-53/IT-138/ITO-21(1)(4)/2018-19 for AY 2011-12 dated 14.06.2019. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer (in short ACIT/ITO/ AO) Circle 21(1)(4), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide dated 14.03.2014
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “Ground No. 1: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [hereafter "the ld. CIT (A)"] erred in passing the appellate order without accepting the appellant's request for adjournment.
Ground No. 2: Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowances/additions made by the AO in a summary manner, without appreciating the merits of the case.
Ground No.3: Without prejudice to ground 1 & 2, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,52,510/- made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Ground No.4: Without prejudice to ground 1 & 2, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.3,05,242/-.
Ground No.5. Without prejudice to ground 1 & 2, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.4,27,330/- made u/s 40(a) (ia)
At the outset, it is noticed from the order of the CIT(A) 3. that CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. The order of CIT(A) is totally ex-parte despite the fact that the many times the matter was fixed for hearing by CIT(A) from 2017 to 2019. The disallowance has been confirmed by the CIT(A) on presumptions, assumptions, conjunctures and surmises and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee in violation of principles of natural justice.
When this was pointed out to Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative, he fairly conceded the position and could not controvert the above submissions.
We find that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte for non-prosecution, but failed to decide the issue on merit in respect of issues challenged in appeal. No doubt, it is the responsibility of the person who files appeal to go to the appellate authorities and file necessary evidences for speedy disposal of appeal. When the appellant did not appear before the authority as and when the appeal is called for hearing, the appellate authority is left with no option but to dispose off, appeal on the basis of materials available on record. However, such appeal should be decided on merits. In this case, on perusal the order passed by the learned CIT(A), we find that the CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution without discussing the issues challenged in appeal on merit. Therefore, we are of the