OMPRAKASH T. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6582/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2006-074 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity. The additional evidence was directed to be filed before the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by an order of the First Appellate Authority. The assessment was framed ex-parte under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 due to non-appearance, and additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) was not admitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied natural justice by the non-admission of additional evidence and ex-parte assessment. Whether a fresh adjudication is required based on the additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Laxminaraynan, Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Hearing: 25/05/2016

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12/09/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.

2.

Though the assessee has raised many grounds with respect to addition of Rs.27,07,407/- representing the value of flat allotted free of cost to the assessee by cooperative housing society but during hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri K.R. Laxminarayanan, claimed that the assessment was framed u/s 144 r.w.s.

1.

147 of the Act due to non-appearance of the assessee, however, the additional evidence filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was not admitted causes substantial injustice to the assessee and the additional evidence goes to the root of the issue in hand. It was pleaded that the issue may be sent to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

2.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Ganesh Bare, contended that in spite of providing opportunities on various occasion, the assessee did not appear before the ld. Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment was framed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. It was pleaded that nothing prevented the assessee to furnish the evidence before the Assessing Officer. In reply, the ld. counsel explained that the additional evidence, filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was not available to the assessee while framing the assessment by the Assessing Officer and was obtained at the later stage from cooperative society, therefore, could not be filed.

2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the assertions and without going into the merits of the appeal, in view of the principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned unheard, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee. The additional evidence filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), not admitted by him, is directed to be filed before the ld. Assessing Officer, who is directed to examine the factual matrix, claim of the assessee and after providing due opportunity to the assessee, shall decide the appeal of the assessee afresh in accordance with law, 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. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 25/05/2016.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →