Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Abhijit Dube Income Tax Officer 506 Horizon view, 1/B Off J.P. Ward No. 20(1)(1) Rd, Seven Bunglow, Versova Mumbai Vs. Andheri(W) Mumbai-61 PAN-AFRPD9202R Appellant .. Respondent .. Neelam C Jadhav Assessee by Revenue by .. Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR .. Date of hearing 24-05-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 02-06-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-36, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-31/IT-88/ITO-20(1)(1) dated 21-10-2016. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-20(1)(1), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2006- 07 vide order dated 11-03-2014 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has decided the issue ex-parte and that also by non speaking order. She argued that on the last date of hearing fixed for 20-10-2016 for which assessee has requested for adjournments, which fact is recorded by CIT(A) himself but adjournment was denied and ex-pate order was passed. However, she stated that the CIT(A) has simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee on both the issue of addition of 5 lakhs investment in mutual funds and addition of 5.60 lakh being gift received from father and also disallowance of deduction for dividend under section 10(34) of the Act of Rs. 2,35,668/-. According to her, the CIT(A) has simply passed the order by observing in Para 5.1 to 5.3 as under: -
Abhijit Dube A.Y:06-07 “5.1 In Ground No.1, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards investment made in Fidelity Mutual Fund to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and HDFC Mutual Fund to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- altogether totaling to Rs.5,00,000/-. In view of the fact that the appellant has not produced any evidence in support of his contention, either before AO or during appellate proceedings, the disallowance made by the AO is upheld and the ground is dismissed.
5.2 In Ground No.2, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 5,60,000/- being received from father as gift. In view of the fact that the appellant has not produced any evidence in support of his contention, either before AO or during the appellate proceedings, the disallowance made by the AO is upheld and the ground is dismissed.
5.3 In Ground No.3, the appellant has challenged that the AO has not allowed deductions under section 10(34) of the Act for Dividend Rs. 2,35,668/-. IN view of the fact that the appellant has not produced any evidence in support of his contention, either before AO or during appellate proceedings, the disallowance made by the AO is upheld and the ground is dismissed.”
Accordingly, she requested for setting aside of the issue to the file of the issue for fresh adjudication. On query from the Bench, the learned Sr. DR fairly conceded the position. After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts of the case, I find that the factually, the CIT(A) has not allowed the opportunity of being heard to the assessee and it violates the principle of natural justice. In the interest of justice, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the Page 2 of 3
Abhijit Dube A.Y:06-07 matter back to the file to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02-06-2017.