SHREE GAJANAND ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 27, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3815/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 January 2019AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the revision order was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's inability to attend the hearing, which was beyond their control. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from a revision order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Act. The assessee contended that the revision order was passed ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the revision order passed by the PCIT was bad in law due to lack of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AR

AadoSa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal filed the assessee is arising out of the revision order of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-27, Mumbai [in short PCIT], vide order dated 23.03.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27(3), Mumbai (in short ‘ACIT’/ ‘ITO’/ AO’) for the A.Y. 2013-14 vide order dated 18.03.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assesse stated that the CIT while revising the assessment passed the revision order u/s 263 of the Act dated 23.03.2018 ex-parte and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse. The learned Counsel for the assesse filed affidavit of Income Tax practitioner, who represented before the CIT and the relevant text of the affidavit reads as under: - “1. That I am an Income tax practitioner.

2. That I look after the income tax matters of the assessee, i.e. Shree Gajanand Associates.

3.

That Shree Gajanand Associates had received notice under section 263 dt. 18-01- 2018 for hearing fixed on 31-01-2018.

4.

That Shree Gajanand Associates forwarded the notice to my office 29-01-2018. 5. That I was not keeping well and due to ill health I was unable to attend the hearing on 31- 01-2018. 6. That no new notice was issued for the hearing and the order was passed ex-parte. 7. That non-appearance, before the Pr. Citron the part of the Appellant was neither deliberate nor with any malicious intention, and, was due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant.

8.

That the appellant has a very good case and would be able to demonstrate the on merits of case, if any opportunity is granted.

9.

I say that whatever stated hereinabove is true to the best of my knowledge and I believe the same to be true.”

3. In view of the above, the learned counsel stated that the PCIT himself noted in Para 4 that there was no attendance and in between notice and final order, only one notice was issued dated 18.01.2018 i.e. show cause notice and finally the order was passed on 23.03.2018. In view of the above reason given, the learned Counsel stated that the revision order passed ex-parte is bad in law and assesse is ready to file the details before PCIT in case the matter is set aside to his file. On query, the learned CIT DR fairly agreed in case the matter is set aside to PCIT.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →