Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan SinghShri Rakesh Mahnot
This appeal by the assessee under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 06.10.2016 for A.Y. 2011-12.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax overlooking the fact that the assessment order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 15.54 being made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D.
3. The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in upholding the treatment of deposit of Rs. 200000 as unexplained credit.
4. The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in upholding the treatment of Rs. 21012110 as unexplained credit Shri Rakesh Mahnot of all fresh loans taken during the year and proportionate interest thereon.”
The facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, is engaged in the business of investment and trading in Shares & Securities and Futures & Options and also partner in two firms, i.e. M/s. Ankur Enterprises and M/s. Texxman India, filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year on 30.09.2011 declaring total loss of `1,38,86,719/-. The assessment was completed on 24.03.2014 under Section 143(3). The AO, while passing the assessment order, made additions of `25,54,517/-, additions of `2,00,000/- as unexplained credit and `2,10,12,100/- as unexplained income under Section 68. On appeal before the CIT(A) all the additions/disallowance were confirmed. Further aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.
At the outset the learned A.R. argued that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order against the assessee and confirmed the disallowances/additions without giving fair and sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The learned A.R. further argued that the grounds of appeal may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for decision on merits with the direction to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The learned D.R. for Revenue submits that despite giving opportunities the assessee did not appear on the date of hearing fixed by the learned CIT(A). However, on specific query, the learned D.R. for restoring the matter to the file of ld CIT(A), the ld DR for Revenue made no objection, provided all the grounds of appeal are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh.
We have heard the rival submissions. We have seen that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Considering the contentions of the parties all the grounds raised by the assessee are restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide all the issues afresh. Needless to say that the learned CIT(A) shall grant adequate and sufficient opportunity to the assessee before passing
Shri Rakesh Mahnot the order. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and appear before the learned CIT(A). The assessee is further directed to provide all the necessary information and evidences as required by the learned CIT(A). With these observations the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.