ADITYA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a proper hearing is essential, especially given the substantial additions made. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity to present its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-appearance. The Assessing Officer had made significant additions to the assessee's income, including deemed dividend and unexplained cash credit.
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?
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
PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai and arises out of order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).
The ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and holding that the assessee was not interest in pursuing the appeal.
Briefly state, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 31.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Aditya Enterprises 2 Rs.3,44,34,510/- as deemed dividend and Rs.3,68,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not attend during the appellate proceedings.
Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the authorized representative who was to appear in the above matter died on 05.11.2016 and therefore, the assessee could not appear on 17.11.2016. It is submitted by him that the assessee is very much interested in pursuing the appeal and therefore, an opportunity be given by the Ld. CIT(A) to argue the case on merits.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) stating that reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee to appear and explain its case. However, the assessee failed to do so.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that an addition of Rs.7,12,34,510/- has been made by the AO to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear during the appellate proceedings. We are of the considered view that a proper hearing would go a long way in resolving the dispute in the instant case. More so, when the addition is in respect of deemed dividend and unexplained cash credit. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to him to make a fresh order after giving reasonable
Aditya Enterprises 3 opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and file the relevant documents/evidence before him.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/11/2017. (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 29/11/2017 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant
The Respondent.
The CIT(A)-
CIT
DR, ITAT, Mumbai
Guard file. BY ORDER, //// (Dy./Asstt.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026