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 SRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM (A.Y:2004-05) Shri Shriniwas Gangadhar Mittaplli, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Room No.69, BDD Chawl No.85, A Ward 18(1)(3), Mumbai Dhondaji Baba Narayan Nayak Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 PAN: AIWPM 7694 J .. Appellant Respondent Appellant by .. None Respondent by .. Ms. Beena Santosh, DR Date of hearing .. 01-09-2016 Date of pronouncement .. 01-09 -2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of CIT (A)-29, Mumbai in peal No.CIT (A)-29/RG-18/17/10-11 dated 19-07-2012. Assessment was framed by AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2004-05 vide his order dated 31-12-2007. Penalty under dispute was levied by ITO, Ward-18(1), Mumbai u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act vide his order 30-03-2010.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of the CIT (A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act.
At the outset, it is noticed that the CIT (A) has dealt with only one issue of the claim of deduction u/s 80 IB of the Act while confirming levy of penalty; whereas there were the following four additions:- a) Unexplained loans Rs.1,96,000/- b) Excess depreciation claimed Rs.1,61,145/- c) Low withdrawals Rs. 76,000/- d) 80IB claim Rs.7,03,150/- 4. We also noticed that the CIT (A) passed a non-speaking order without affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. First of all, the assessee
CIT (A) should not have been ex- parte. Even otherwise, on merit also the CIT (A) has not adjudicated any of the issue by giving any reason. In terms of the above, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restore the matter back to the file of the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 01-09-2016.