SOHANRAJ SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX WARD-19(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5223/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2018AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO within two months to present their case on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) due to personal reasons, resulting in ex-parte orders. The assessee's accountant also met with an unfortunate accident.

What were the issues?

Whether ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were justified, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh K Chothani &, Shri Jitendra Singh
For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Hearing: 25/04/2018

आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):

1.

These are the appeals filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-29, Mumbai dated 30/05/2017 for the A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 in the matter of order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The common grounds have been taken by assessee in A.Y.2010- 11 and 2011-12.

1.

The expartee- order passed by the earned Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law and facts.

2. The Appellant has been carrying on business by having Shop at Industrial area at Nashik at Plot No. 84, MIDC Satpur, Nashik- 422007 and managing the business from there only. He comes for a day or two in a month at Mumbai office for settling the payments and some legal 5224/Mum/2017 Shri Sohanraj Shah matters. He was not brought to notice about the hearing of the appeal hence could not prepare submissions by informing his chartered accountant. Absence on the date of hearing was not intentional but due to not being known with the facts of notices for hearing was there. Hence, appellant prayed that he has got a very strong case on merits and the appellant be given an opportunity to present his case and the Learned CIT (A) be directed to decide the same on merits.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in accepting the order of the assessing officer. Appellant request your honour to consider the above facts and delete the additions to the total income for want of Justice.

3.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.

4.

It was submitted by learned AR that the assessee lost his mother and his brother-in-law was admitted in hospital due to serious illness, the assessee could not appear before the AO and exparty order was passed. He further submitted that against the exparte order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), and all the details were filed before him. However, the assessee could not attend the proceedings because at that time his Accountant Mr. Yogesh Devalia who was preparing all the details required for CIT(A) proceedings had a suicidal tendency and he died in an accident. In support of his contention, learned AR filed affidavit of the proprietor of the firm Mr. Sohanraj K. Shah which reads as under:-

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →