What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that an ex-parte order was passed as the assessee was absent and sought adjournments. The Tribunal directed the assessee to produce evidence before the CIT(A) and ordered a fresh adjudication of the appeal with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The assessee is aggrieved by an ex-parte order confirming a loan amount as income and disallowing interest expenditure. The assessee contended that they were not provided a proper opportunity to be heard and their adjournment requests were rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

J. Gala Builders vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘J’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri A. Mohan- DR

Hearing: 20/08/2018

सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing: 20/08/2018 23/08/2018 आदेश क� तार�ख /Date of Order:

M/s J Gala Builders आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh(Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05/01/2017 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, passing an ex-parte order and confirming the loan amount received from fourteen parties, amounting to Rs.49,75,000/- as income and further confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.3,26,467/-.

During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Ms. Ruchi M. Rathor, advanced arguments, which is identical to the ground raised by contending that proper opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee and the assessee in a position to substantiate its claim with documentary evidences. It was pleaded that the request of adjournment was rejected by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), which is against the principle of natural justice. On the other hand, Shri A. Mohan, Ld. DR, defended the impugned order by contending that in spite of providing opportunities, the assessee simply was asking adjournments and it was the duty of the assessee to make effective representation on the appointed date.

M/s J Gala Builders 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noted that before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), none was present for the assessee and in spite of opportunities, the assessee requested the First Appellate Authority to grant adjournments and thus an ex-parte order was passed.

Without going in to much deliberation, we deem it appropriate to direct the assessee to produce necessary evidence, if any, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to substantiate its claim. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is directed to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee afresh, in accordance with law. The assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is further directed to be vigilant in future and to cooperate with the First Appellate Authority for early disposal of the appeal and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

M/s J Gala Builders This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of Ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of hearing on 20/08/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated :23/08/2018 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/.�न.स. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai, 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

J. GALA BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 13(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments