DHIRAL RAMESH SANGOI ,KOPARKHAIRANE vs. ITO, WARD 19(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2282/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 October 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that even if the assessee is not responding to notices, the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits. For justice and fair play, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-compliance to notices. The assessment order was framed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act as the assessee did not respond to AO's queries. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 13,91,618/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and whether the addition made by the AO was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr. D/R
Hearing: 30/09/2024Pronounced: 30/09/2024

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Guwahati, dated 12/03/2024 pertaining to AY 2016-17.

2.

The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, for alleged noncompliance to appeal notices, inspite of the appellant being not aware of the notices issued and for this reason the order dismissing the appeal was not justified and may kindly be over turned and set aside. 2. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, for alleged noncompliance to hearing notices, without deciding the appeal on the merits and for this reason also the order of the Hon. CIT(A) is bad-in-law and required to be set aside. 3. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,91,618/-as estimated income, determined @ 2 percent of the value of transactions in derivatives, as reported by AIR information, inspite of the fact that the actual income from such derivative trading transactions is included in the income disclosed by the appellant. The addition of Rs.13,91,618/-being not justified as per facts and in law may kindly be deleted.

4.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete and/or vary any of the above grounds of appeal at any time before the decision of the appeal.”

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →