The assessee, a share and stock broker, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer made certain disallowances. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who decided the appeal without hearing the assessee, despite adjourning the matter to a later date.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by deciding the appeal without hearing the assessee. Whether the appeal should be restored for fresh adjudication.

Sanghvi Brother5S Brokerage Ltd vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Q: What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had violated the principles of natural justice by deciding the appeal without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे�� सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार PER RAJENDRA,AM- अनुसार Challenging the order,dated 23/09/2014 of the CIT(A)-8,Mumbai the assessee has filed the present appeal.Assessee,a share and stock broker,filed its return of income on 29/09.2010, declaring income of Rs.1.49Crores.The Assessing Officer(AO)completed the assessment u/s. 143(3)of the Act,on 28.02.2013,determining its income at Rs.1.52 Crores making certain disallowances. 2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).It filed an application for adjourning case during the course of appellate proceedings,vide its letter dated 18.09.2014.The FAA adjourned the matter to 28. 10.2014.However,without informing the assessee,he decided the appeal on 23/09/2014. Upholding the order of the AO,he dismissed the appeal filed by it. 3.Before us,the Authorised Representative(AR)referred to the letter of 18.09.2014 and stated that the appeal was decided without hearing the assessee.The Departmental Representative (DR)left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. We find that the FAA had decided the appeal without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee,that he himself had adjourned the matter to 28/10/2014.It is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.Therefore,in the interest of justice we are restoring back the matter to the file of FAA for fresh adjudication.He would decide the appeal after hearing the assessee.Effective ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee ,in part

6898/M/14-Sanghvi Bros.

SANGHVI BROTHER5S BROKERAGE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments