What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, restored the matter to the first appellate authority to provide another opportunity for hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was against the confirmation of additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee did not appear before the first appellate authority or the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunities to be heard, and if the matter should be remanded for a fresh adjudication.

Chepar Plastics P.Ltd vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri Neil Philip-Ld.DR

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member):- 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2012-13 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)- 16/ITO-9(3)(1)/IT0260/2015-16 dated 29/12/2017 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. None has appeared for assessee and no adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the same on the basis of material on record and after hearing Ld. DR, who justified the impugned additions.

Facts on record reveal that the assessee has been saddled with certain additions of Rs.163 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases in an assessment u/s 143(3) framed on 26/03/2015. The same was agitated before Ld. first appellate authority without any success vide impugned order dated 29/12/2017 wherein the assessee did not make effective representative despite being provided with several opportunity of being heard. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us.

Upon careful consideration, the overall conduct of the assessee reveal that the assessee has remained negligent in attending the hearing before us as well as before Ld. first appellate authority. However, keeping in view the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and accordingly, restore the matter before Ld. first appellate authority. The assessee is directed to substantiate its stand failing which Ld. first appellate authority shall be at liberty to adjudicate the same on the basis of material on record.

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/05/2019. Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 16/05/2019 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese

CHEPAR PLASTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments