Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, E Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-20, Mumbai dated 26.08.2014 for A.Y. 2010-11.
The various grounds raised by the assessee are as under: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in adjudicating the appeal without affording the appellant with sufficient opportunity of being heard and against the principles of natural justice and equity.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing deduction of Interest paid amounting to Rs.73,78,379/- u/s 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in adding the share application money of Rs.6.65 crores as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
The issue raised in first ground of appeal is that the First Appellate Authority has passed the order without affording reasonable opportunity of M/s. Sezal Realty and Infrastructre Ltd. being heard to the assessee thereby causing miscarriage of principles of natural justice.
4. At the outset the learned A.R. vehemently submitted before the Bench that the order has been passed by the First Appellate Authority without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and thus the assessee was deprived from opportunity to present its case on merits. The learned A.R. pleaded before the Bench that in view of the said non-granting of sufficient opportunity the case was decided by the learned CIT(A) without considering the contentions and submissions which assessee was to make before the said authority. The learned A.R. prayed before the Bench that in view of these facts the case may kindly be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee to file necessary evidences and present its contentions and the case be decided de nova.
The learned D.R., on the other hand, objected to the arguments of the learned A.R. by submitting that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee but the failure to file written submissions on the part of the assessee’s counsel could not be attributed to the First Appellate Authority as the assessee could not file the submissions despite several opportunities. In view of the same the learned D.R. requested the Bench that the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed.
Having heard both sides and considering the relevant material on record we find that the counsel of the assessee requested for some time to file written submissions which could not be filed on the date fixed for filing such details due to survey on the premises of the assessee. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 27.02.2014 but on that date also none attended the proceedings before the CIT(A) and the case was decided exparte. The AR submitted before the bench that the assessee should be give one more opportunity as it could not present its case before the ld CIT(A) for sufficient reasons. Considering the prayers of the assessee , we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more chance to present its case
M/s. Sezal Realty and Infrastructre Ltd. before the First Appellate Authority so that the assessee could file its written submission or present its contentions and the case be decided after taking all these contentions/submission into account. Therefore , in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to afford sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue involved in the appeal de novo.