ABU JANI SANDIP KHOSLA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3296/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 November 2017AY 2002-033 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the addition of unaccounted sales of ₹38.50 lakhs. The CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte and issued a non-speaking order, which the assessee argued violated principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard, thereby denying natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-39, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)] in appeal No. CIT(A)-39/AC.CC2/IT-231/2010-11 dated 30-11-2012. The Assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Circle, Circle 22, Mumbai (in short ACCC) for the assessment year 2002-03 vide order dated 21.12.2010 under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of unaccounted sales i.e. ₹ 38.50 lakhs and for this assessee has raised the issue of natural justice. The learned

Abu Jani Sandip Khosla (A.Y. 2002-03) Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the order of CIT(A), who decided the appeal ex-parte and also by a non-speaking order. For this the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has not allowed opportunity of being heard and for this assessee has raised following ground No.3: -

“3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting opportunity and thereby denying the appellant natural justice.”

3.

The learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the CIT(A)’s order who has simply confirmed the addition without considering the facts of the case. Even, AO has not considered the facts in proper perspective. However, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being o the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee has to represent on the appoint date because the appeal was posted by CIT(A) on many occasions. Now, the assessee will represent himself before CIT(A), first for taking date and then will produce whatever evidence is called for. In term of the above, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and remanded the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22-11-2017.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →