What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed to remand the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order.

The assessees' appeals were consolidated as they involved identical issues for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee's counsel requested a remand to the CIT(A) due to the ex-parte nature of the previous order and the absence of the CA due to sickness.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and if the appeals should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

Mamta Lalitkumar Goel vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah

For Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai, DR

Hearing: 05.12.2016Pronounced: 05.12.2016

आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are two appeals under consideration. Both these appeals are filed by the two different assessees from the same family involving the assessment year 2005-06. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are identical / inter-connected, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed off in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paras of this order.

At the outset, ld Counsel for the assessees briefly narrated the facts of the case and brought our attention to the order of the CIT (A) and mentioned that the said order was finalized in the spirit of ex-parte adjudication. Bringing our attention to the pars 4 of the CIT (A)’s order, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that Shri Manmohan Agarwal, concerned Chartered Accountant (CA) of the assessee could not attend on 11.3.2015, which lead to the dismissal of the certain issues raised in the appeals. Mentioning that the said CA was sick on the said date, relying on the Medical Certificate, copy of which is filed before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee pleaded for remanding the issues raised in both the appeals to the file of the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication and for want of a speaking order on all the issues raised in the said appeals.

On hearing both the parties and on considering the prayer raised by the assessee before us, we are of the opinion, both the instant appeals should be remanded to the file of CIT (A) as desired by the Ld Counsel for the assessee. We order accordingly. CIT (A) shall adjudicate the issues on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. CIT (A) is also directed to pass a speaking order in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to attend before the CIT (A) as and when he calls without fail. Thus, all the grounds raised

in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

4. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th December, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 05.12.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS

आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1.

MAMTA LALITKUMAR GOEL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(1), 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