BHAGWATILAL B. MANDOVRA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5566/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 March 2017AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment were not disposed of. Grounds related to this violation of natural justice were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee raised grounds concerning the principles of natural justice and the lack of a reasonable opportunity of being heard during reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-disposal of assessee's objections and denial of a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 D. KARUNAKARA RAO

For Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, DR
Hearing: 09.02.2017Pronounced: 31.03.2017

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 09.02.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2017 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 14.9.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-29, Mumbai dated 24.6.2016 for the assessment year 2008-2009.

2.

Before me, none appeared to represent the case of the assessee. Therefore, considering the issues involved, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the help of the Ld DR for the Revenue in the following paras of this order. 3. In this appeal, assessee raised eight grounds in toto. At the outset, Ld DR for the Revenue brought my attention to Ground no.1 and mentioned that the legal issue in the said ground requires attention of the Bench. On going through the Ground nos. 1, 2 and 3, I find that the assessee is aggrieved on the issue of „principles of natural justice‟ in matters of not disposing of the objections of the assessee as well as for non-granting of reasonable opportunity of being heard in the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. In this regard, assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer and Others 259 ITR 19 (SC). Ld DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 4. I have heard the Ld DR for the Revenue and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before the Tribunal.

After hearing both the parties, without going into the merits as well as the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the concluded assessment, I find, this is a case of non-disposing of the objections of the assessee which were filed opposing the AO‟s attempt to re-open the completed assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. In my view, Grounds no. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are reasonable and they should be allowed. Accordingly I order. Regarding the other grounds raised by the assessee (grounds no. 5 to 8), I am of the opinion these grounds should be set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after applying the guidelines specified in the said judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (supra). AO shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds no. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. Grounds no. 5 to 8 are allowed for statistical purposes.

5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st March, 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 →