M/S VISHAL BABULAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-30, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2165/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 December 2024AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee, which is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the issues to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming an addition made by the AO. The assessee had not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A). The issue concerned the disallowance of 12.5% of the value of alleged bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) without hearing the assessee violates principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “F” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. Vishal Babulal Shah, Income TaxOfficer-19(3)(5), Damodhar Lotawala Bldg, Matru Mandir Building, 456, Sindhi Lane, vs. Tardeo Road, Grant Road, Mumbai Mumbai PAN : AYTPS6260K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri Paresh Deshpande Date of Hearing : 17-12-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 18-12-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M :

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and it relates to the assessment year(AY.) 2009-10.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We notice that the issue contested in this appeal relates to disallowance of Rs. 12.5% of the value of alleged bogus purchases made by the AO. We notice that the assessee did not appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and hence, he was constrained to pass order ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee, wherein he confirmed the addition made by the AO. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue against the assessee without hearing him, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

Accordingly, we set aside the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the issue in appeal.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →