M/S MITESH RAMESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1679/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 November 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessee claimed not to have received notices from the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner. Considering the Assessee's submissions as genuine and plausible, and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs.8,62,244/- and Rs.25,867/- under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee appealed these additions to the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner but filed no substantive document, leading to dismissal. The Assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, claiming non-receipt of notices from the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be remanded to the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner for a fresh decision, considering the Assessee's claim of not receiving hearing notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 28.11.2024Pronounced: 28.11.2024

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.02.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2012-13.

2.

In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 28.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act has made the additions of Rs.8,62,244/- and Rs.25,867/- respectively u/s 68 & 69C of the Act.

3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner. However, in spite of affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Assessee filed no substantive document before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner, which resulted into dismissal of the appeal of the Assessee.

3.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before this Court. The Assessee before this court has submitted that it has not received the notices issued by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner. Even otherwise from the impugned order, it is nowhere appearing, as to whether any notice for hearing was ever issued to the Assessee or not.

4.

The Ld. D.R. did not refute the aforesaid facts, however, relied on the order passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner.

5.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances, as demonstrated by the Assessee and claim lodged by the Assessee as genuine and plausible, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →