YATISH WALMIK MADHAVI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4315/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 April 2017AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the genuine reasons for non-attendance and the need for a fair hearing. Considering the assessee's illiteracy in tax matters and other peculiar facts, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) due to non-attendance before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The assessee's counsel presented an affidavit explaining the reasons for non-attendance and requested a remand for fresh examination.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of cash deposits in the bank was made without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha & Mr. Prateek Jha
Hearing: 20.03.2017Pronounced: 12.04.2017

अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Prayag Jha & Mr. Prateek Jha प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Ms. Beena Santosh, DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 20.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 22.6.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-26, Mumbai dated 29.04.2014 for the assessment year 2009-2010.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeals relates to the addition on account of cash deposits in bank and the sources thereof. It is an admitted position that nobody represented the assessee before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (A). Therefore, the proceedings were completed ex-parte. 3. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, Ld Counsel for the assessee not only filed an affidavit dated 02.01.2017 stating that the non-attendance before the officers has the support of string genuine reasons and relied on the contents of the said affidavit. On the merits, Ld Counsel for the assessee filed a paper book containing additional evidence. Before me, Ld Counsel for the assessee requested for remanding the issue to the file of the AO for fresh examination and decision after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Considering the illiteracy in tax matters and other peculiar facts, I order for remanding to AO’s file. AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →