KIRTI M SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2676/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 August 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the AO. Therefore, the impugned orders of the lower authorities were set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's representative could not attend a hearing before the Assessing Officer (AO) due to unavoidable circumstances, leading to an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144. The assessee claimed that all necessary details were submitted, but the AO ignored them. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO was bad in law due to non-consideration of evidence and absence of the assessee's representative. Whether the assessee should be allowed to present their case before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 80C,Section 80D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI SANJAY GARG

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Parikh, A.R
For Respondent: Shri V.K. Bora, D.R
Hearing: 18.08.2016Pronounced: 18.08.2016

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.01.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

1. The learned Income Tax officer erred in passing order u/s. 144 of the I.Tax Act, 1961. Your appellant attended and submitted the required details before assessing officer from time to time.

2. The learned Income Tax Officer erred in adding Rs.509450/- as unexplained money in bank account by taking net difference of opening balance, closing balance and deposits.

3.

The learned Income Tax Officer not allowed deductions u/s. 80C/80D of the I. Tax Act, 1961.”

3. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has brought our attention to the assessment order and has submitted that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has passed an ex-parte assessment order under section 2 Mr. Kirti M. Shah 144 of the Act. The Ld. A.R., inviting our attention to the documents filed in the paper book, has further stated that all the requisite details were filed before the AO. However, on the date of hearing due to unavoidable circumstances, the representative of the assessee could not appear before the AO. The AO, however while passing the assessment order, ignored the relevant evidences filed by the assessee before him. He, therefore, has stated that the ex-parte order of the AO passed under section 144 of the Act ignoring the relevant evidences filed by the assessee was bad in law. He has also brought our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and has stated that similar type of submissions were also made before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the above submissions of the assessee.

4.

We have gone through the impugned order of the AO and of the Ld. CIT(A). After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be well served if the assessee is given an opportunity before the AO to present his case and submit the necessary details in support of his claim before the AO. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders of the lower authorities and restore the matter to the file of the AO for assessment afresh. Needless to say that the AO will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and submit the necessary details and evidences. We also direct the assessee to participate in the assessment proceedings and attend to the hearing as and when called for by the AO. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.08.2016.

More judgments on Section 80C

All 658 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →