SADIKALI K KAROVALIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2531/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 August 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found the assessee's explanation plausible and, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was confirmed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance. The assessee sought another opportunity, explaining they were out of station and had requested notices be sent to their CA.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a fair hearing due to non-receipt of notices, and if a fresh opportunity should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2012-13 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-44 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-44/ITO-32(3)(3)/ITA-130/2015-16 dated 10/01/2017 qua confirmation of certain additions. The assessee has been assessed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 on 23/03/2015 at Rs.77.37 Lacs after certain additions / disallowances as against revised Sadikali K. Karovalia Assessment Year-2012-13 returned income of Rs.20.41 Lacs filed by the assessee on 12/02/2014. The same, upon further appeal, has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 10/01/2017 which is an ex-parte order qua the assessee since the assessee failed to appear on various dates as noted by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order on page number-2. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

Before us, the Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri S.M.Mukhija, only seeks another opportunity of being heard on the strength of letter dated 07/07/2016 filed by the assessee requesting Ld. CIT(A) to send the hearing notices at the address of the assessee’s Chartered Accountant. The copy of the same has been placed on record. The same has been controverted by Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri A.Mohan, who submitted that the assessee was grossly negligent in making any representation before the Ld. first appellate authority.

3.

We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record including the letter submitted by the assessee before Ld. first appellate authority. It is evident that the assessee requested for issuance of hearing notices at the address of the Consultant vide his letter dated 07/07/2016 on account of the fact that the assessee was out of station for about six months. Upon perusal of impugned order, we find that hearing notices have been issued after the submission of this letter, prima facie, at the address mentioned by the assessee in Form No.

35.

Therefore, finding explanation of the Ld. AR plausible and keeping in view the principle of natural justice, we see no harm in providing another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case before Ld. first Sadikali K. Karovalia Assessment Year-2012-13 appellate authority. Hence, the matter stand remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication in the light of submissions made by the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to supply requisite information / evidences as called from him to substantiate his case failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to dispose-off the same on the basis of material available on record.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st August, 2018.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →