Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU& SHRI AMARJIT SINGH.
ORDER PER G.S.PANNU, J.M: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)- 33, Mumbai dated 30/10/2014 which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 30/12/2013.
In this appeal the assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal:-
“ 1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper service of notice on the appellant.
2 Reasons given by learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper service of notice on the appellant, are wrong, insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record.
3 The learned CIT(A) ought to have given the Appellant proper opportunity of being heard.
4 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 48,89,025/- on account of cessation of liability u/s 41 (1) of the IT Act.
5 Reasons given by learned CIT(A) for confirming addition of Rs. 48,89,025/- on account of cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the IT Act, are wrong, insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. 6 The learned CIT(A) ought to have followed direction of the ITAT in deciding the said issue on account of cessation of liability of Rs. 48, 89,025/- u/s 41(1) of the IT Act.”
In brief, the relevant facts are that assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of civil contracting. For assessment year 2007- 08, he filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,10,060/-, which was subject to scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) dated 27/11/2009, determining total income at Rs.51,54,250/-, after making certain additions/disallowances. One of the additions made in assessment is of a sum of Rs.48,89,025/-, representing cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act. This aspect of the addition travelled upto the Tribunal and vide its order in dated 28/02/2013 , the Tribunal set-aside the issue of cessation of liability back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. In an order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of dated 30/12/2013, in compliance with the direction of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer retained the same addition under section 40(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.48,89,025/-. The said addition was carried in appeal before the CIT(A), who had dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against such an order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, assessee has raised multiple Grounds of appeal, as above. However, at the time of hearing, Ld. Representative for the assessee has raised a preliminary ground that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice of hearing. It has been pointed out that the notice of hearing was issued once by the CIT(A) and that too at the old address, though such address was stated in Form No.35 before the CIT(A). The Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessment order contained the correct address of the assessee and, in fact, the impugned ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) has since been delivered to him at the address mentioned in the assessment order, which is the correct address. Because the notice of hearing was not sent at the address mentioned in the assessment order, it remained to be served and consequently, assessee could not put-in an appearance before the CIT(A). It was thus, contended that the assessee would be satisfied, if the matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(A) in order to enable him to put-forth his submissions on the merits of the addition.
The Ld. Departmental Representative has not opposed the plea of the assessee for remanding the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits.