What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require that a person must be heard before any decision is taken. The Assessing Officer should have waited for the assessee or provided a further opportunity.

The assessee's assessment was completed hastily on the appointed date without considering their submissions filed late in the afternoon. The Assessing Officer disallowed purchases from eight parties.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment was completed in violation of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to be heard.

Prama Instruments P. Ltd vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘C’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar-DR

Hearing: 28/11/2016

सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 28/11/2016 02/12/2016 आदेश क� तार�ख /Date of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16/03/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai,

2 M/s Prama Instruments Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act in a hasty manner, without considering the submission of the assessee on the appointed date.

During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri S.L. Jain, invited our attention to the remarks made by the Assessing Officer, on the submissions of the assessee, which were filed at 4.45 PM on the appointed date i.e. 28/02/2013. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Ms. Mahua Sarkar, defended the addition by contending that the assessee did not attend the assessment proceedings in time and filed the written submission at 4.45 PM, by the time, the assessment had already been passed. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and reselling of laboratory equipment declared income of Rs.1,03,41,492/- in its return filed on 30/09/2010. While framing the assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the purchases made by the assessee from eight entities parties. The authorized representative of the assessee reached to the office of the Assessing Officer at 4.45 PM on the appointed date i.e. 28/02/2013 and by the time the assessment order had already been passed, thus, without going into much deliberation/merits of the case, we are of the view that no person should be condemned unheard. It may or may not be a case of addition but the foremost requirement is that the person should be heard before any decision is taken. The 3 M/s Prama Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

assessee was asked to appear before the Assessing Officer 28/02/2013. Though, the assessee reached in the office of the Assessing Officer late but at the same time at least the Assessing Officer was expected to wait for one day. The assessment order is in four pages and possibly was passed in the morning itself and at least before 4.45 PM. Considering the totality of facts, the principle of natural justice, we remand this appeal to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh in accordance with law, for which due opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to approach the office of the ld. Assessing Officer within one month from receipt of this order and shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary evidence, if any, in support of its claim, thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 28/11/2016. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 02/12/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S //.�न.स. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent.

4 M/s Prama Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

PRAMA INSTRUMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(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