ABDUL KARIM MOHAMED NAIK,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1901/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant 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 held that the lower appellate authority had not considered or decided the assessee's substantive grievances. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2016-17 arose from an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution instead of deciding it on merits. The assessee attributed non-appearance to a communication gap regarding notice service.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and whether proper opportunity of hearing was provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Appellant: Shri Ismail Halvadwala, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J. Sr. D.R

O R D E R Per : Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)

Delhi’s DIN & order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053278366(1) dated 29.05.2023, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. the instant appeal:

“1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of gift received from son, Dr. Zakir Naik, of Rs.5,97,00,000/- as income u/s. 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 under the head Income from Other Sources.

2. The CIT(A) erred in not giving proper opportunity of hearing.

3.

Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the grounds whenever considered necessary.”

4.

It emerges at the outset with able assistance coming from both the parties as well as a perusal of the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion in paragraphs 5 to 5.5 that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC herein has dismissed the assessee’s lower appeal for “non prosecution” than deciding the sam on merits as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon.

5.

Faced with this situation, we sought to know the reason of assessee’s non appearance despite the fact that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC had issued various notices as evident from para 5.2, page 3 in the lower appellate order. The assessee clarifies that the reason of his non appearance was neither intentional nor deliberate on account of communication gap regarding service of the lower appellate authority estimating notices at various levels. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the lower appellate authority has not considered or decided the assessee’s substantive grievances pleaded therein as per law (supra). Faced with this situation, we restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication as per law subject to a rider that it shall be tax payer’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →