ASHOK DAULATRAO JANGAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 29/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 February 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Revenue conceded to remitting the issue back to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of ₹25,46,000 for unexplained investment in property. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for lack of substantiating documents and submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and whether the addition for unexplained investment was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)] in appeal No. CIT(A)-41/IT-291/15-16 dated 17-10-2016. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai (in short ITO) for the assessment year 2012-13 vide order dated 31-03-2015 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act amounting to ₹ 25,46,000/- on account of payment towards purchase of property. The assessee has also raised the issue that the CIT(A) passed ex parte order in violation of principle of natural justice. For this he raised the following ground No 1: -

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in passing the order of ex-parte and confirming all the additions made by the Assessing Officer.”

3.

At the outset, it is noticed from the order of CIT(A) that he has decided the issue by a non-speaking order and simply confirmed the action of the AO by observing in Para 6 as under: -

“6. I have gone through statement of facts, grounds of appeal and assessment order. The facts claimed and stated in the statement of facts and grounds of appeal were not substantiated with supporting documents and evidences by the appellant.

On the issue of addition made on account of unexplained investment, no explanation regarding source for making payments towards purchase of property along with stamp duty and registration charges or any supporting documents could be filed. In spite of several opportunities, the appellant has neither prayed for adjournment nor flied any submission in support of his ground of appeal. Therefore, it is held that the appellant has failed to prove that the AO's approach is wrong. In view of above, all the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant are dismissed.”

4. When this fact was confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he fairly conceded that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In term of the above, I am of the view that let the issue remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) who will passed the order after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard and also by speaking order. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and matter is remanded to his file for fresh adjudication. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23-02-2018

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →