DILIP G. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3869/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 December 2015AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in declining to adjudicate the additional grounds. The Tribunal relied on various Supreme Court judgments allowing additional grounds to be taken during appeal proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) which were not adjudicated. The CIT(A) refused to consider these grounds, stating they were general in nature and not taken earlier.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Whether additional grounds can be taken during the pendency of an appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: S/SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA & AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Krish B. Desai
Hearing: 26.10.2015Pronounced: 23.12.2015

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

This is an appeal against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “learned CIT(A)”] dated 07.02.2013 relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The sole point which has been raised by the appellant that the additional grounds which have been taken by him in his letter dated 20.07.2012 and letter dated 04.08.2012 and letter dated 24.08.2012 have not be adjudicated by the learned CIT(A) without any reasonable cause. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) speaks that the additional grounds which have been taken by the ITA No.3869/M/13 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Avery Cycles Inds Ltd. Vs. CIT(292 ITR 493) (P&H). Therefore in the said circumstances we are of the view that declining the additional grounds for adjudication by the learned CIT(A) is not justifiable. Therefore without commenting upon the merits of the case we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and direct the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the additional grounds which has been raised by the assessee in his letter dated 20.07.2012, 04.08.2012 and 24.08.2012 in accordance with law after giving proper and full opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore the appeal is hereby ordered to restored before learned CIT(A) for compliance. So far as the other grounds are concern, since the main grievance of the assessee is in connection with the adjudication of additional grounds, therefore the other grounds became academic in nature and would be futile exercise to decide.

3.

In result the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd December, 2015 (AMARJIT SINGH) (N.K.BILLAIYA) लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 23rd December, 2015 MP MP MP MP Assessment Year: 2009-10

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

2.

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु"त / CIT

5.

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत ""त //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →