VALLABHBHAI HARJIBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4048/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 September 2016AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2009-10, primarily alleging denial of adequate opportunity of hearing. The original assessment involved additions for cash credits, and the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity of being heard by the lower appellate authority. The merits of additions made under Section 68 were also challenged.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma

O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (AM) : The instant appeal has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2009-10 assailing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35 [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 18.03.2014 primarily on the ground that adequate opportunity of being heard has not been given to the assessee. The assessee has also assailed confirmation of addition under section 68 of the Income Tax act 1961 on merits.

2.

Facts in brief, are that the assessee is a resident individual who filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 declaring total income at Rs.5,91,902/- which was processed under Section 143(3) vide Assessing Officer order dated 08.12.2011. The income was recomputed at Rs.15,93,090/- after making certain additions relating to cash credits. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) but the same was dismissed ex-parte vide order dated 18.03.2014.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee. It has been noticed that the appeal has been filed with the delay of 405 days and assessee has requested for the condonation of the same vide its letter dated 23.06.2015 on the following ground:- “I’m illiterate assessee having agriculture income and living most of time in my village. My income tax matter was handled by ITP (income tax practitioner), and all the time when I received any notice from Department handed over to ITP. I am not having sufficient knowledge about tax regime.”

Further, the primary grievance of the assessee is that adequate opportunity of being heard has not been provided at the appellate stage so as to contest the impugned additions.

4.

Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the Justice, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted on merits. Consequently, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to provide another opportunity to assessee to present his case. The assessee is hereby directed to cooperate in the proceedings before lower authorities and promptly respond to the notices and provide information / documents called for failing which it shall be open for the CIT(A) to dispose-off the appeal on merits on the basis of material and documents as available on record.

5.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/09/2016

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →