KAJAL SHIVNANDAN SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1484/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 December 2017AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided a fair opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte because a hearing notice was returned as unclaimed. The CIT(A) confirmed additions made by the AO on account of sale consideration of a flat and investment in bank fixed deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Mr. T.A. Khan, DR
Hearing: 27/12/2017Pronounced: 29/12/2017

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

2.

The ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is against the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.60,00,000/- made by the AO towards sale consideration of flat and Rs.34,99,676/- towards investment in Bank FD.

Ms. Kajal Shivnandan Singh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →