SA COMPUTER WORLD SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3651/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 March 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing. The assessee had sought adjournments due to being out of Mumbai and later for other reasons, which were rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether the addition made under Section 68 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Iswar Rathi
For Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya
Hearing: 11.02.2019Pronounced: 29.03.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–21, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 16.06.2017 for the A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

Assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition made u/s. 68 and also passing the order by the Ld.CIT(A) exparte without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

(A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. SA Computer World Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 3. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed appeal on 20.03.2016 and appeal was fixed for hearing for the first time on 20.04.2017 on which date Ld. AR took time and the case was fixed for hearing on 05.05.2017. Assessee could not appear on 05.05.2017 but letter was filed on 08.05.2017 seeking further time as he could not appear since he was out of Mumbai during May. The appeal was re-fixed for hearing on 07.06.2017 on which date request for adjournment was made by the assessee which was rejected by the Ld.CIT(A) and passed exparte order confirming the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for giving one more opportunity to the assessee.

4.

Ld. DR left to the discretion of the Bench.

5.

On hearing both the sides and perusing the order of the Ld.CIT(A), I am of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) should have given one more opportunity to the assessee to prosecute the appeal before him. At the same time assessee also should have cooperated with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjustments. Thus, the assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjournments. With these observations, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo

(A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. SA Computer World Solutions Pvt. Ltd., adjudication in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29th March, 2019

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →