What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed in violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not heard. The impugned order was set aside, and the First Appellate Authority was directed to adjudicate the issue on merits after providing a proper hearing.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority without providing an opportunity to be heard. The Assessing Officer had adopted a higher value for capital gains than the agreed sale consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the First Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice.

Supermax International P. Ltd vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &, Shri Prateek Jha

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist-DR

Hearing: 13/02/2017

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20/12/2012 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, on the grounds stated in the grounds of appeal.

2. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Prayag Jha, along with Shri Pratik Jha, invited our attention to para 2.3 of the impugned order by contending that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without providing any opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, it was submitted that the assessee may be heard as there is a violation of principle of natural justice. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri B.S. Bist, though defended the addition/dismissal of appeal but did not controvert the factual matrix that ex-parte order was passed by the First Appellate Authority.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the Ld. Assessing Officer assessed long term capital gains adopting the value at Rs.2100 per sq. yard, being value fixed by the Stamp duty authorities as against Rs.826 per sq. yard, agreed value of sale consideration. The assessee objected to the adoption of higher value and consequent gains. Without going into much deliberation, we find that the notice of hearing was never served upon the assessee, therefore, we are 3 M/s Supremax International Pvt. Ltd. of the view that no persons should be condemned unheard. Ever otherwise, as per mandate of Constitution of India only due taxes has to be levied/collected. The impugned order is set-aside and the First Appellate Authority is directed to adjudicate the issue on merit for which due opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee. The assessee is also at liberty to substantiate its claim with help of material evidence, if any, available with the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 13/02/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. Pradhan) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 21/02/2017 f{x~{tÜ? P.S /�नजी स�चव

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR,

4 M/s Supremax International Pvt. Ltd.

SUPERMAX INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments