Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
Date of Hearing – 01.03.2018 Date of Order – 07.03.2018
O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28th July 2017, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–10, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2011–12.
Brief facts are, the assessee a company is engaged in the business of real estate development and letting out of premises. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 30th September 2011, declaring total income of ` 8,35,59,374. While completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated 20th February 2014, the Assessing Officer
2 Silvermoon Constructions Pvt. Ltd. made certain additions / disallowances aggregating to ` 46,72,178. Being aggrieved of the additions made by the Assessing Officer assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). As it appears, since none appeared on behalf of the assessee on various dates fixed for hearing, the first appellate authority, proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee alleging non–submission of the required details.
Learned Authorised Representative submitted, the concerned Chartered Accountant who was authorised to appear on behalf of the assessee before the first appellate authority neither appeared before him nor appraised the assessee about the day–to–day development of the proceedings. Therefore, the assessee was totally unaware of the requirements of the first appellate authority for deciding the appeal. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Authorised Representative also submitted an affidavit of one of the directors of the company. He, therefore, submitted, the matter may be restored to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue on merits.
Learned Departmental Representative has no objection if one more opportunity is given to the assessee to represent its case before the first appellate authority.
3 Silvermoon Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, though, the appeal before the first appellate authority was fixed for hearing on a number of occasions, there was no compliance from assessee’s side. Therefore, in the absence of required details being furnished by the assessee the learned Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to dismiss the appeal. However, considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and perusing the affidavit filed by one of the directors of assessee’s company we are of the view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to effectively represent its case before the first appellate authority. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to him for deciding the issues raised by the assessee in the appeal on merits after a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, we direct the assessee to comply to the notice of hearing to be issued by the first appellate authority and co–operate in finalising the proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07.03.2018