What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) within two months to present their case and furnish evidence.

The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance. The Assessing Officer had made additions on account of unexplained deposits and share transactions. The assessee claimed that details were provided but not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and whether the additions made by the AO were based on proper consideration of evidence.

Ramashray R. Yadav, Thane vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh,

For Appellant: Shri A.Ramachandran-DR

Hearing: 05/07/2016

आदेश / O R D E R

The assessee is aggrieved by an ex-parte impugned order dated 25/03/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, challenging the addition made on account of unexplained deposits and unexplained investment on share transactions.

During hearing of this appeal, none was present for the assessee in spite of issuance of registered AD notice on 13/06/2016. The assessee neither presented himself nor moved any adjournment petition. It seems that the assessee has nothing to say, therefore, I have no option but to proceed ex-parte, qua the assessee, and tend to dispose of this appeal on the basis of material available on record. The ld. DR, Shri A. Ramachandran, though defended the addition but contended that due to non- appearance of the assessee, an ex-parte order has been passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).

2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, the assessee is engaged in the trading of cement and building material, filed original return on 08/09/2009, disclosing income of Rs.2,14,350/-. During assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish details of transport business, Ambika Automobiles/cash deposits and details of share transactions. As per the statement of facts, the assessee furnished the details along with cash flow statement. However, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits as unexplained and added to the total income. It is also noted that the assessee also furnished the details of sale and purchase of shares, which were claimed to be not considered by the Assessing Officer and further summons were not issued to the share brokers, in spite of the fact that necessary details were provided by the assessee. It is noted that on appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the order was decided ex-parte as neither anybody for the assessee nor from the Department was present before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Considering the totality of facts, I am of the view that no person should be condemned unheard. At the same time, the assessee is also directed to be vigilant in future and is directed to appear before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) within two months from the receipt of this order. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is free to decide the appeal on a mutually agreed date. It is made clear, if the assessee still does not appear within the aforesaid stipulated period then the appeal may be decided on the basis of material available on record. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 05/07/2016.

Sd/- (Joginder Singh) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 05/07/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S /�नजी स�चव

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

RAMASHRAY R. YADAV,THANE vs. ITO WD 4(3), THANE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments