INTER CARAT JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 308/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that no notice was served on the assessee, thus violating the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were decided ex-parte by the First Appellate Authority. The assessee contended that no notice of hearing was served, violating the principle of natural justice. The revenue argued it was the assessee's duty to represent themselves.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the First Appellate Authority without proper service of notice violates the principle of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri JOGINDER SINGH, & Shri G. MANJUNATHA

For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemlatha-DR
Pronounced: 03/05/2018

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member)

1.

These two appeals are by the assessee against the impugned ex-parte orders both dated 29/06/2017 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.

2.

During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Prakash Jotwani, contended that no notice of hearing was ever served upon the assessee and thus an ex-parte order was passed by the First Appellate Authority, which is violation of principle of natural justice. On the other hand, Ms. N. Hemlatha, Ld. Sr. DR, contended that it was the duty of the assessee to make effective representation before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), therefore, the appeals were rightly rejected.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Without going into the merits of the appeal, we note that the assessee is private limited company engaged in the business, declared nil income in its return, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 22/01/2019 accepting the returned income at nil. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information with respect to unexplained expenditure. The assessee was claimed to be one of the beneficiaries of obtaining bogus bills for non-existing purchases amounting to Rs.1,06,784/- (Assessment Year 2007-08). However, we are of the view that as per mandate of Article 265 of Constitution of India, only due taxes has to be levied/collected. Keeping in view, the principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned unheard and since no service of notice was effected upon the assessee, we deem it appropriate to remand both these appeals to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for fresh adjudication on merit. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish necessary evidence, if any, to substantiate its claim. The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes.

This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 03/05/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (G. Manjunatha) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 03/05/2018 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/.�न.स.,

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →