RISHI DEVKINANNDAN MEHRA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 24(3), MUMBAI

The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-36, Mumbai dated 16.12.2016, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13, which in turn has arisen from the order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer, Mumbai under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -36, Mumbai has erred, in law and the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the order of the learned A.O. the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 24 (3), Mumbai.

2. The ld. CIT (A) -36, Mumbai erred in passing an ex-parte order and not granting opportunity to the appellant to be heard. The notice allegedly said to have been sent had not been received by the appellant.

4. Without prejudice, if addition is made the same should be restricted to exempt income earned.

6. The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the house property income as income from other sources as against house property income claimed by the appellant and thereby denying the claim of the appellant under provision of section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The additions made in earlier years has been deleted by the Id. CIT (A) and the Hon. ITAT, Mumbai upholding the claim of the appellant. The appellant respectfully submits that the claim of the appellant u/s 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be allowed.

Business Promotion Expenses Rs. 84,947/- Salary Rs.9,68,500/- Travelling Expenses Rs.2,48,362/- ----------------------------------------------------- Rs.13,01,809/- =========== The said expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and hence fully allowed. Hence the appellant submits that the said expenses may fully be allowed.

3. At the time of hearing, the learned representative for the assessee raised a preliminary point contained in Ground of appeal no. 2 contending that the CIT(A) had erred in passing an ex parte order and not granting appropriate opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Elaborating this Ground, the learned representative pointed out that CIT(A) had allowed only one hearing and, in fact, on the appointed date of hearing, the concerned learned representative was busy with his daughter’s marriage which was being solemnised on the same day. The learned representative pointed out that the staff of the learned representative did approach the office of the CIT(A), but for some reasons the appeal order was passed ex parte thereby the say of the assessee could not be presented before him. The learned representative pointed out that presently, the assessee would be satisfied if the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for hearing afresh and deciding the issues as per law after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

5. Having considered the rival stands, we find that in the interest of justice and fair play an opportunity of hearing deserves to be allowed to the assessee at the level of CIT(A). In fact, a perusal of the impugned order of CIT(A) reveals that the appeal has been dismissed primarily noticing the absence of the assessee without going into the merits of the Grounds raised before him in an appropriate manner. Be that as it may, we deem it fit and proper to restore the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) who shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter decide the various Grounds raised as per law. We may clarify here that our decision to remand the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) is no reflection on the merits of the various grounds, which the CIT(A) shall be free to adjudicate in accordance with law, of course, after hearing the assessee.

The above decision was pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of the hearing on 3rd October, 2018.