NILESH NAGINDAS AMBAVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CR 21(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6411/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 March 2017AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) for long-term capital gains from share sales but could not submit required details in time.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Whether the claim for exemption under Section 10(38) requires further verification by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas V Mahendale, AR
For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, DR

Shri Nilesh Nagindas Ambavi Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 401, Kelawala Tower, 28, Circle21(1), C-10, 6th Floor, 601, BKC, Swastik Society, N.S. Road No. Vs. 2, Juhu Scheme, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400 056 (E), Mumbai-400 051 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. ABMPA1780C Assessee by .. Shri Vishwas V Mahendale, AR Revenue by .. Shri Suman Kumar, DR Date of hearing .. 02-03-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 02-03-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-32, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-32/ACIT 21(1)/IT-69/2013-14 dated 07-08-2014. The Assessment was framed by DCIT Circle-21(1), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 26-03-2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has passed ex parte order and has not provided opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Qua this learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the first ground raised by assessee which reads as under: -

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble CIT(A)-32, Mumbai has erred in passing adverse remarks about the attendance of appellant’s Counsel before him and consequently, not providing adequate opportunity to appellant for making representations before him.”

3.

The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the only issue on merits is as regards to the rejection of assessee’s claim of exemption under section Nilesh Nagindas Ambavi; AY. 10-11 10(38) of the Act in respect to long term capital gain arising out of the sale of shares of Rs.7,36,383/-. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that he is to collect the details of demat account and certificate from SEBI / BSE investor service centre in this regard. Hence, he could not submit the details in time.

4.

After hearing both the sides and going through the facts of the case, we find that the CIT(A) has not allowed opportunity of being heard to the assessee, hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A). But that will not clinch the issue because still information is not available and assessee has earlier written a letter dated 19-06-2014 to the BSE investors service centre for verification of the contract note issue by the broker VVI securities dated 04-11-2008. These are vital evidences which need to be verified by the AO and hence, we remand the matter back to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication. Needless to say that the AO will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard and also will allow to file evidences before him to prove his claim. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 02-03-2017.

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →