BAADER SCHULZ LABORATORIES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4179/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 November 2017AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the appeals are restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper hearing opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) for assessment year 2005-06, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee is now ready to present their case and requested the matter be restored.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed without hearing the assessee should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

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 “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Joshi, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Hearing: 02.11.2017Pronounced: 30.11.2017

Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member:

1.

The above titled appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.03.2015 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2005-06.

2.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee could not present before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without hearing to the assessee. Now assessee

3.

Ld. D.R. objected to it.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We find that assessee firm is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs and pharmaceuticals. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 31.10.2005 declaring total loss of Rs.1,15,24,260/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 28.11.2005 declaring total loss of Rs.30,38,470/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. We find that the assessee did not remain present before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore this appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.11.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →