MOHANLAL P. SETHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5142/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 November 2017AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to substantiate their case, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration on merits and to explain the delay, in the interest of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's returned income was Rs. 2,56,030, but the assessment was framed at Rs. 21,58,690. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of approximately 2 months and failure to attend proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for delay and non-appearance, or if natural justice requires reconsideration of the case on merits.

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, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2008-09 assails the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-25 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-25/IT-1/14(1)(4)/11- 12 dated 23/05/2012. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer 14(1)(4), Mumbai [AO] on 30/12/2010 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961. None has appeared for assessee despite ITA.No.5142/Mum/2012 Mohanlal P. Sethia Assessment Year-2008-09 notice and no adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the same on the basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative [DR].

2.

Facts on record reveals that the assessee has been assessed for impugned AY at Rs.21,58,690/- after certain additions / adjustments as against returned income of Rs,2,56,030/- filed by the assessee on 29/09/2008. The same, upon appeal to Ld. CIT(A), has been confirmed since the assessee did not attended the proceedings. Further, Ld. CIT(A) noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of approx. 2 months, which could not be explained satisfactorily by assessee. Resultantly, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us on the plea of natural justice. The Ld. DR has relied on the stand of lower authorities.

3.

After perusing the same, we opine that the assessee miserably failed to substantiate his case before lower authorities. However, for want of principal of natural justice, the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the claim of the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate his claim on merits as well as satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the appeal before first appellate authority.

4.

Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08th November, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →