Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND ASHWANI TANEJA, AM (A.Y:2010-11) (A.Y:2011-12) M/s Sheth Feromet Pvt. Ltd Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-10 20, Badarika ashram, 110, 2 nd ITO ward 5(3)-2, Mumbai Vs. Floor, 1st Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400004 Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by .. None. Revenue by .. Shri. T.A. Khan, DR Date of hearing .. 29-11-2016 Date of pronouncement .. 29-11-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
These two appeals by the assessee are arising out of the different orders of the CIT (A)-10, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT(A)-10/ITO-5(3)(2)/572&573/2013- 14 even dated 23-01-2015. The Assessments were framed by ITO Ward-5(3)-2, Mumbai for the A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 vide orders of even date 08-01-2014 u/s 147 r. w. s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The first common issue in these two appeals by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) not passing any speaking order on the first ground of appeal
raised before him in regard to the AO not communicating the reasons for reopening of assessment. For this the assessee has raised identical worded grounds in both the years and the ground raised in the A.Y. 2010-11 reads as under: - “1. The learned ITO erred in not communicating the reasons for reopening the assessment & hence it is bad in law. The learned CIT(A), Mumbai erred in not passing any speaking order to our first ground of appeal raised before him.”
3. At the outset, we have gone through the grounds raised by assessee before the first appellant authority that the ground No. 1 reads as under: - “The learned ITO erred in not communicating the reasons for reopening the case & hence assessment order passed is bad in law.”
2 & 2032/Mum/2015 4. We have gone through the specific arguments raised before CIT(A) by assessee that the assessee has requested several time to the AO but he has not been communicated reasons for reopening the case and assessment order passed without communicating the reasons for reopening of assessment. We have also gone through the findings of CIT(A) on this, which are identical in both the cases and the same reads as under: -
I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, statement of facts, relevant assessment order, written submission, relied upon case laws and the arguments made by the LAR before the undersigned. Ground Nos.1&2. Pertains to the general issues of not giving the reasons of 148 and not providing proper opportunities by the AO. During the appeal proceedings it was specifically asked to the AR that the parties from whom alleged purchase were made may now be produced. This was done to provide proper opportunity. The reasons of 148 were also stated to be based on the information received about these bogus purchases. However, the appellant could not produce any party even during appeal proceedings, therefore, these general grounds are dismissed.
We have gone through the above findings recorded by CIT(A) and noticed that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated first issue at all whether reasons were communicated to the assessee for reopening of assessment or not and consequently assessment is bad or not. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on this ground in both the years and decide the appeal on merits also after adjudicating the issue on jurisdiction. Both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 29-11-2016.