UNIVERSAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 626/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 June 2018AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte after multiple non-compliances by the assessee. However, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT concerned additions made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) for unexplained cash deposits and undisclosed closing stock. The assessee also contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity, and whether the additions for unexplained cash and undisclosed stock were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: DR Assessee by :
Hearing: 19.06.2018

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CUT(A)-33/Rg.21/67/2014-15 dated 15.11.2016. The Assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-18(3), Mumbai (in short ‘ACIT’) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 27.03.2014 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The two issues in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to the addition uphold by the CIT(A) in respect of the unexplained cash deposits in bank under section 69A of the Act and addition on account of undisclosed closing stock of two flats. Assessee has also raised the issue of violation of principles of natural justice as the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without giving proper and sufficient opportunity. For this assessee raised following two grounds: “1. The learned CIT (A) erred in passing exparte order without giving proper and sufficient opportunity. 2.(a) The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of assessing officer on account of unexplained cash u/s 69 A of I.T. Act, 1961. (b) The CIT (A) erred in stating that appellant failed to explain source of cash & erred in upholding conclusion drawn by the assessing officer. (c) The appellant submits that appellant had explained that cash found was out of withdrawals from bank a/cs. 3. (a) The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the assessing officer in making addition on account of undisclosed closing stock of two Flats. (b) The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the submissions made by the appellant that the said two flats did not belong to the appellant & that flats belonged to the tenants.”

3.

Today none is present from the assessee’s side and Ld. Sr. D.R. stated that even before CIT(A) none was present this fact has been noted by CIT(A) in para-7 of his order, which reads as under:

7.

After filing of the present appeal, the case was fixed for hearing vide notice dated 13.04.2015 asking the appellant to appear on 30.04.2015. The notice was duly served on the appellant. But none attended on the appointed date nor any application for adjournment was filed. The case was again fixed for hearing vide notice dated 01/12/2015 asking the appellant to appear on 10/12/2015. The notice was duly served on the appellant. An adjournment letter is received by post. Accordingly, the case was re-fixed for hearing vide notice dated 19/01/2016 asking the appellant to appear on 16/02/2016. Again, none attended on the appointed date nor any application for adjournment was filed. Further, a fresh notice was issued to the appellant vide notice dated 20.09.2016 asking the appellant to appear on 05/10/2016. On the appointed date, again an adjournment letter is received by post. Accordingly, a last and final opportunity is given" to the appellant by 're-fixing the appeal on 25.10.2016. However, even after giving final opportunity, no body attained nor any adjournment letter is filed. Thus it is clear that the appellant has repeated the same conduct of non-compliance on the appointed dates. Till date, neither the appellant nor his Authorized representatives has ever attended the appellate proceedings or filed any details.

8.

From the above sequence of the non-compliances and the non- seriousness of the appellant in the matter of present appeal and with such irresponsible conduct of the appellant, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, this appeal is being decided on merits as per the material available on record. 4. Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative in view of the above stated that she is ready for argument in case the bench wants to hear.

5.

We have noted the fact that the CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex- parte but under great restrain. The CIT(A) under pain, issued many notices to assessee, who has not complied with. It seems that assessee is a non- compliant person but the order as passed by CIT(A) is also ex-parte, without hearing the assessee. In the interest of natural justice, we restore this matter back to the file of the CIT(A) and CIT(A) will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that the assessee will present himself before the CIT(A) so that proper opportunity can be availed of. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and matter restored back to his file.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19-06-2018. AadoSa kI AadoSa kI Gaao AadoSa kI AadoSa kI GaaoGaao GaaoYaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk YaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk YaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk .19.6.2018 kao kI YaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk kao kI kao kI ga[ kao kI ga[ ga[- . ga[

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →