RAJESH AMARSHI KHANDOR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4651/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 September 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require that no person should be condemned unheard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee claims no notice of hearing was received, and thus, could not appear to substantiate their case. The Assessing Officer had added cash deposits as unexplained cash credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid without proper service of notice and opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh,

For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar-DR
Hearing: 08/09/2016

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

The assessee is aggrieved by the ex-parte impugned order dated 13/03/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.

2.

During hearing, Shri Suresh Manilal Pooj, ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that no notice of hearing was ever received by the assessee from the office of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), therefore, there was no question of appearance by the assessee. It was pleaded that the assessee may be provided opportunity to substantiate his case. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Sumit Kumar, contended that the assessee did not appear before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) on the appointed date, therefore, ex-parte order was passed.

2.1. I have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual, proprietor of M/s Demand Enterprises, engaged in the business of manufacturing of readymade garments. There was information under CASS, as per which, it was noticed that the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs.18,52,135/- in his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank. The assessee was asked as to why the same should not be added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. However, the ld. Assessing Officer made the addition. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), notices were issued to the assessee and the case was fixed for 19/09/2013, 17/01/2014 and 13/03/2014. As per the impugned order, none appeared before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to substantiate the claim. However, there is no finding in the impugned order that notices were served upon the assessee. Without going into much deliberation and keeping in view the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that no person should be condemned unheard, therefore, the impugned appeal is remanded back to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to approach the office of the Ld. First Appellate Authority within one month from the receipt of this order. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is free to adjudicate the appeal on a mutually pre-decided date. 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 in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 08/09/2016.

Sd/- (Joginder Singh) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 08/09/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S /�नजी स�चव

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त/ The CIT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →