KOKILA JAYANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5030/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 November 2017AY 2010-112 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 found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11. Consequently, the CIT(A) passed an order without hearing the assessee. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, requesting the matter be restored to the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed without hearing the assessee is valid. Whether the case should be remanded for fresh hearing.

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 “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja, A.R
For Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R
Hearing: 06.11.2017Pronounced: 23.11.2017

Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.04.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2010-11.

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 is ready to go to the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, he requested to restore this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

3.

Ld. D.R. objected to it.

2 Mrs. Kokila J. Shah 4. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. I find that assessee is having income from Prop. business of M/s. K.J. Corporation dealing in building materials and transport contractor. Assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.6,31,720/- on 14.10.2010. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. I find that the assessee did not remain present before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, 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, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.11.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →