RAJEEV JAGDEESH PURI,YAVATMAL vs. CIT(A)-28,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4487/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 August 2016AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by either the AO or the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO under Section 144. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and dismissing the appeal without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri K. L. Kanak, Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (A.Y:2010-11) Rajeev Jagdeesh Puri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(2)(4), 6th Floor, K. B-203/2014, Bhoomi Classic, New Link Road, Malad (W), G. Mittal Aayurvedic Mumbai 400 064 Hospital Building, Charni Road, Mumbai 400 002 PAN: AQWPP 7580J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by .. None .. Respondent by Shri K. L. Kanak, Sr. DR Date of hearing .. 11-08-2016 Date of pronouncement 11-08-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of CIT (A)-28, Mumbai in Appeal No. CIT (A)-28/ITO-26(2) (4)/332/2013-14 dated 03-11-2014. Assessment was framed by ITO-26(4) (2), Mumbai for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 22-03-2013.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is against passing of ex-parte order. For this the assessee has raised the following two grounds:- “1. The Learned CIT (A) erred in passing in passing an ex-parte order without further investigating into alleged additions.

2. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law in dismissing appeal without making further enquiries which is very much within its jurisdiction as the power of CIT (A) is coterminous with that of AO”.

3.

At the outset, it is noticed that the assessment order passed by the AO is ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Even, the CIT (A) has allowed only one opportunity 15-09-2014 to which the assessee’s Chartered Accountant appeared on 25-09-2014 and asked for adjournment. The CIT (A) decided the appeal on merits on the basis the materials available but, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. When this fact was confronted to the learned Sr. DR, he fairly conceded that the matter be remitted back as both the authorities have decided the issue ex-parte. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that in the interest of Principles of Natural Justice, the assessee should be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard before framing assessment. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11-08-2016

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →