MR. PRAMOD S MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-19(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1388/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 September 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)1 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 noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. While acknowledging the assessee's non-appearance, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merit. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative, and the CIT(A) was instructed to ensure observance of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in trading metals, filed a return for AY 2011-12. The case was reopened, and the Assessing Officer assessed total income at Rs. 35,57,550/-, initiating penalty proceedings. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in default.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in default and whether the principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil K. Joshi
For Respondent: Shri. R. R Makwana, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04/09/2024Pronounced: 09/09/2024

(Assessment Year : 2011–12) Pramod Smehta HUF Vs. ITO, Ward-19(2)(3), 166, 6th Kumbharwada, Piramal Chambers, 2nd Floor, Shree Mumbai-400020. Sadan, Office no. 8, Mumbai-400004. PAN/GIR No. AADHM3866P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Nikhil K. Joshi Revenue by Shri. R. R Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement 09/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M):

1. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A) 30, Mumbai/14480/2016-17 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2011-12, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal in default of assessee.

2. Briefly stating the facts, that assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metals under the name and style Mr. Pramod S Mehta HUF of M/s. Navkar Steel & Engineering has filed his return of income on 26.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 7,33,545/- for A.Y. 2011-12. The case was reopened after recording the reasons and notice u/s. 148 dated 04.03.2016 was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee furnished relevant details. After considering the details submitted by assessee, assessing officer assessed total income at Rs. 35,57,550/-. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately.

3.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal in default of assessee.

4.

Assessee filed this second appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the assessing officer.

5.

In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing.

6.

We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for both the parties.

7.

Learned representative for the assessee has, at the very outset submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice. Prayed to set aside the impugned order.

8.

Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) but for no avail. Learned DR has supported impugned order passed by the first appellate authority.

Mr. Pramod S Mehta HUF 9. We notice that learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, the decision there on and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. We are conscious of the fact, that assessee has not turned up before the first appellate authority in response to the notices. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merit. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the first appellate authority for the expeditious and effective disposal of the appeal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed.

10.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.01.2024 is set aside. The case is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 09.09.2024.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →