RATAN P. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1837/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 August 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) noted sending notices, the case was not decided on merits. In the interest of justice, the assessee should get an opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee contended that no proper opportunity of being heard was provided. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowance of Rs. 29,40,000/- as unexplained investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Gopal
For Respondent: Shri. A. Ramchandran
Hearing: 19/08/2016Pronounced: 24/08/2016

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 31/03/2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-25 Mumbai for the Asst. Year 2009-10, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the finding of the A.O and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

2.

The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following effective grounds of appeal :-

1. On the facts, in the circumstances of the case & in law the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte appeal order without giving the appellant proper opportunity of being heard.

2. On the facts, in the circumstances of the case & in law the Learned CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (Ld. A.O.) thereby increasing the returned income from Rs. 2,02,230/- to Rs. 31,42,230/-.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the decision of the Ld. A.O. of considering the cash deposit of Rs. 29,40,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69.

3.

At the very outset the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex parte without giving an opportunity of being heard of the appellant/assessee, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the disallowance of the depreciation confirmed by the CIT(A) may be deleted, or in alternative, the file may be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand submitted that since the assessee/appellant did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite the services of notices through Regd. Post, he is stopped from raising the plea that opportunity of being heard was not afforded to him to pursue his case.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the documents on record. Although the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned the dated on which notices to the assessee were sent through registered speed post. Before proceeding ex parte, the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded his satisfaction to the effect that the assessee does not want to pursue his case. Yet, in our considered view, since the first appellate authority has not decided the case on merits, in the interest of justice and fair play, he should get an opportunity to present his case before the first appellate authority. We, therefore, set aside the ex parte order and restore the same to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10 is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →