Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member):-
Aforesaid stay application by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2012-13 seeks stay of recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.1,64,55,523/-. The Ld. Authorised Representative for Assessee [AR], at the outset, drew out attention to the order of the first appellate authority and submitted that the same is an ex-parte order since the assessee could not attend the proceedings before Ld. first appellate authority in view of the fact that the notices of hearing on various dates were sent at the old address of the assessee whereas the assessee had already shifted its registered office during the relevant period. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has suffered heavy quantum additions of Rs.412.52 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.18,990/- and therefore, the principle of natural justice demand that another opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee by remitting the matter back to the file of Ld. first appellate authority. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that the notices were sent as per address provided in Form 35 and the onus was on assessee to inform about the change of address to the first appellate authority and pursue its SA No.112/Mum/2018 Sahyadri Renewables Energy Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 appeal. The Ld. DR also opposed the stay of recovery of demand since the stay application has already been rejected by the lower authorities.
We have carefully perused the rival contentions and relevant material on record including original grounds of appeal
as well as additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the quantum appeal before this Tribunal. It is evident from the record that the order of first appellate authority is an ex-parte order since the assessee failed to attend the appellate proceedings on various dates as noted by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [CIT(A)] in para 2.4 of the appellate order. Further, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating the same on merits and without considering additional evidences submitted by the assessee before him. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, was not justified in dismissing the appeal by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi high court rendered in Multiplan India Pvt. Ld.
38. ITD 320. Therefore, on factual matrix, the bench formed an opinion that the assessee deserves another opportunity of being heard and substantiate his case before Ld. first appellate authority. In view of the stated fact, the quantum appeal stands remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication with a direction to assessee to substantiate his claim forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to dispose-off the same on merits on the basis of material available on record.
SA No.112/Mum/2018 Sahyadri Renewables Energy Private Limited Assessment Year-2012-13 3. Resultantly, assessee’s quantum appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes whereas stay application SA No. 112/Mum/2018 stands dismissed, being infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd February, 2018.