HARESH K. PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2044/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 June 2017AY 2008-093 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 CIT(A) is obligated to pass an order on merits and not dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution without a decision on merits. The assessee contended that the appeal was filed in time and the CIT(A) erred in not providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA

For Appellant: Shri. Ishwar Prakash Rathi
For Respondent: Shri. Sumit Kumar

Date of Hearing – 31.05.2017 Date of Order -01.06.2017

O R D E R PER: SHAMIM YAHYA This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-44, Mumbai dated 31/01/2017 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. 2. The following grounds have been taken by the assessee.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal without providing proper opportunity of being heard.

2. Further without prejudice to the above, as per the facts of Shri Haresh K. Parekh the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal considering the same as delayed filed appeal, whereas the same has been filed in time.

3.

Further without prejudice to the above, the learned assessing office has erred in re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act.

4.

Further without prejudice to the above, as per the facts of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not deciding the ground of appeal

s against additions of Rs. 3,34,150/- as income from other sources and the additions of Rs. 16,708/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act.

3. At the outset, it is noted that the CIT(A) in this case has not passed an order on merits but has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. I find that it is incumbent upon the learned CIT(A) to pass an order on merits of the case and not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. This proposition is supported by the following case laws:-

1. CIT vs. P.A.Luthra HUF 240 Taxman 133 (Bom.)

2. CIT vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar 74 ITR 41 (SC)

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, I set aside the issue to the file of learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue on merits and pass a speaking order after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

5. Learned Counsel of the assessee has agreed to suo-moto appear before the learned CIT(A) within two months of this order to canvass the appeal.

6.

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01.06.2017

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →