SANIKA ASSETS MANAGEMENT & INVESTMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3878/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 November 2017AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns additions of ₹4.36 crores representing cash deposits and ₹2.40 crores for payments to encroachers. The CIT(A) had confirmed these additions ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The validity of additions made on account of cash deposits and payments for land title clearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

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 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (h/c. CIT(Appeals) 51, Mumbai, [in short PCIT(OSD)] in appeal No. Pr. CIT (OSD)(h/c. CIT(A)-51/IT-8/2013- 14 dated 17-03-2015. The Assessment was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15 & 16, Mumbai (in short DCIT) for the assessment year 2007-08 vide order dated 21.03.2013 under section 153A read with section 143(3) 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 ₹ 4.36 crores representing cash

I TA N o. 3 87 8 /M um/ 2 0 15 Sa ni ka A ss et s Ma n a ge me n t & In v es t me n t P v t. L t d. (A. Y. 2 0 0 7 -0 8 ) deposits in the bank account of the assessee and the CIT(A) has not allowed opportunity of being heard to the assessee and passed ex-parte order. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the grounds raised for not allowing proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Following three grounds reads as under: -

“1. The learned CIT(Appeal) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,36,00,000/- representing the cash deposited by persons who are not the directors in the account opened by them without the knowledge and consent of appellant or its director without giving the proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. The learned CIT(Appeal) further failed to appreciate the facts of end use of fund by the persons who had opened the account and thereby incorrectly making the addition in the hand of appellant. The addition of Rs. 4,36,00,000/- should therefore be deleted.

2. The learned CIT(Appeal) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,36.00,000/- with initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1 )(c) of the Act disregarding the offer of appellant for making the payment of tax and not being agreed for assessment of Rs. 4,36,00,000/- as the income of the appellant.

I TA N o. 3 87 8 /M um/ 2 0 15 Sa ni ka A ss et s Ma n a ge me n t & In v es t me n t P v t. L t d. (A. Y. 2 0 0 7 -0 8 )

3. The learned CIT(Appeal) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- without giving proper and sufficient opportunity, on account of payment made to encroachers through 3 mediators for clearance of title of ownership and possession of land without appreciating the facts of payment recorded in the regular books of accounts, not claimed as revenue expenditure and source of payment explained to Learned AD. The addition of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- should therefore be deleted.”

3.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A), where he simply confirmed the findings of Assessing Officer. The learned Counsel for the assessee also contested the findings of CIT(A) that the company agreed to surrender the said sum. In view of these, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. On the other hand, the learned CIT Departmental Representative, very fairly conceded that the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte.

4.

After hearing both the sides and going through the facts of the case, we find that the assessee was allowed many opportunities of hearing and we are concern for that. However, in the interest of natural justice, we set aside the orders of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file for adjudication on merits by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, that the CIT(A) will allow the reasonable opportunity of being

I TA N o. 3 87 8 /M um/ 2 0 15 Sa ni ka A ss et s Ma n a ge me n t & In v es t me n t P v t. L t d. (A. Y. 2 0 0 7 -0 8 ) heard to the assessee and the assessee will also attend hearing as and when notice issued. For that purposes, assessee once will contact the CIT(A) for the date of hearing. In term of the above, we set aside the orders of CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes as directed above.

5.

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 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →