ELECTRONIC & ENGINEERING CO.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1),ERSTWHILE JCIT-20(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissing the appeals in-limine was not permissible. Given the legal developments and the need for a decision on merits, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeals back to the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) without deciding on merits. The assessee sought to have the appeals decided on merits, considering recent Supreme Court judgments on the characterization of income.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex parte without granting a proper opportunity of hearing and whether the income was correctly characterized as business income versus income from house property or other sources.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 50C,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT381 citing373 ITR 673 · 2015 · SC
- Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT89 citing386 ITR 500 · 2016 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA
Date of hearing : 08-12-2016 Date of order : 23 -12-2016
O R D E R Per ASHWANI TANEJA, AM: These appeals have been filed by the same assessee involving identical issues.
First, we shall take up appeal for A.Y.2010-11 which is filed against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 36, Mumbai [(CIT(A), in short hereinafter] vide order dated 22-08-2016 passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 21-03- 2014 on the following grounds:-
2 & 6011/Mum/2016 “Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer (A.O) as confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], your appellant prefers an appeal against the same on following grounds, which it is prayed may be considered without prejudice to one another: 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without granting proper opportunity of hearing. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act which is bad in law. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), contrary to the binding decision of the superior appellate authorities in the assessee's own case, erred in confirming the assessment of Business center receipts under the head "Income from House Property" and not "Income from Business" as returned by the Assessee. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment of Compensation received under the head "Income from other sources" and not "Income from Business" as returned by the assessee. 3.1 Without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming non allowance of various expenses claimed as deduction in the Profit and loss account. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), erred in confirming the assessment of commission received as "Income from other sources" and not "Income from Business" as returned by the assessee. 4.1 Without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the non allowance of various expenses claimed as deduction in the Profit and loss account. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming that the consideration received on transfer of tenancy rights is income chargeable to tax under the head "Income from Other Sources. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, having confirming that the consideration received on transfer of tenancy rights is income chargeable to tax under the head 3 & 6011/Mum/2016 "Income from Other Sources", the CIT(A) erred in confirming the applicability of Section 50C of the act. 8) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the levy of interest u/s 2348 and 234C is consequential in nature. 9) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the ground pertaining to initiation of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) is premature in nature.” During the course of hearing it was stated at the outset by the Ld.
Counsel of the assessee that assessee that assessee had been regularly attending the hearings before the Ld.CIT(A) and request for adjournments were made because case could not prepared for want of complete details and evidences. Prayer for adjournment was rejected and appeals have been disposed of ex parte and the appeals were dismissed in-limine and the appeals were not disposed of or decided on merits. Further, the main issue involved in this appeal was with regard to characterization of income as “Income from house property” or “Income from business” and on this issue there has been significant legal development because of two Supreme Court judgments in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd vs ACIT 386 ITR 500 (SC). In view of these facts, it was requested that these appeals should be sent back to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits, that too, after considering the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have direct bearing on the issues involved. It was also submitted by the Ld. Counsel that full co-operation shall be extended by the assessee to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of these appeals.
Per contra, the Ld. DR fairly submitted that these appeals may be sent back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in view of legal developments as discussed above.
4 & 6011/Mum/2016 5. We have gone through the facts of the case. It is noted by us that assessee have been seeking adjournments in this case from 16-02-2015 to 08-08-2016. Undoubtedly, it was not practically feasible to adjourn the appeals for infinite time. However, it is also noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeals on merits. These appeals have been dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) in-limine which is not permissible under the law. Further, it is also noticed by us that because of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, there may be substantial bearing on the issues raised by the assessee. Under these circumstances, we find it appropriate to send both these appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided on merits, after considering aforesaid judgements. The assessee shall also be free to raise any further legal and factual issue and opportunity shall be granted by the Ld. CIT(A) to furnish requisite details and evidences. No adjournment shall be taken by the assessee except for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. The assessee is directed to appear suo moto before the Ld. CIT(A) on 15-02- 2017. The assessee shall carry copy of our order. The assessee shall also prepare written submissions and paper book well in time so that precious time of Ld. CIT(A) is not wasted in granting adjournments without any proper reasons.
As a result, both the appeals are sent back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with our aforesaid directions.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026