“Commissioner (Appeals)”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(16A) / Section 1174,761 judgments

The decision most relied on for Commissioner (Appeals) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Commissioner (Appeals)

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court

1,372

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court

659

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

199 ITR 351 · 1993 · High Court

441

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider additional grounds for deduction, even if not originally claimed before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the facts are not disputed and it pertains to a legal claim for correct tax liability. This is because the purpose of an appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate

53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court

359

citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court

278

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT

201

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.

56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court

196

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has an independent statutory obligation to conduct proper inquiries and verify facts, especially when the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The CIT(A) must ensure effective inquiry is carried out before deleting additions or accepting additional evidence.

Judgments citing Commissioner (Appeals)

The Great Eastern Shipping Co., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG.5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 197/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Percy j. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate with S/Sh. Jitendra Jain& Rashid PoonawalFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat , CIT and Shri Sambit Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

from core activity. In a going concern, such write backs and making of supplementary provisions takes place. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have treated the very same income which is taxable under section 41(1) differently. The first being expenditure claimed in pre- tonnage tax scheme ... from core activity and just because tax rates different, they cannot be treated as non- business income. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) seem to have been influenced by the fact that the assessee has an income of Z 800 crores in its Profit & Loss account

Hemal Maganlal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

under any head of income.]” [Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271. (1) If the [Assessing] Officer or the [Commissioner (Appeals)] [or the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person— (c) has concealed ... under this Act,— (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the [Assessing] Officer or the [***][Commissioner (Appeals)][or the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

above factual and legal discussion and considering the latest decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court referred above, we have noted that the ld Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order after considering the entire material available before him. We have seen that the order passed by Id. Commissioner (Appeals) is reasoned

Arnav Gruh Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully allowed

ITA 5709/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Arnav Gruh Ltd. 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaaca4900E ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle-32, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 57

recorded any satisfaction as per the mandate of section 14A(2) r/w rule 8D(1). It is relevant to observe that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the aforesaid factual position by holding that the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction with regard to the correctness of assessee ... proceeding to disallow expenditure under section 14A. In the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a clear and categorical finding in this regard which has not been challenged by the Department. Therefore, when the statutory provisions mandate

Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R

Section 132Section 153A

payer. (iii) That this Amendment came after both, the Tribunal passed the order in the present case on 21-11-2014 as also the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order on 11-2-2015. Nonetheless, retrospective effect of the said Amendment, will have its effect on the present case ... such challenge to the Amendment has been made in the present case. [Pail 10]  In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted and it stands to the reason for the Commissioner (Appeals) to have followed the Chattisgarh High Court's decision and refused

M/S. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Bellur Hiriyaniah Sridhar Murthy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 544/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43B

interest of the appellant is bad, erroneous in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 3. The Ld. AO erred in an intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein disallowance ... addition made, tax and interest demanded is contrary to the Article 265 and 227 and 141 of the Constitution. 9. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO in his order by taking recourse to the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation

Bellur Hiriyaniah Sridhar Murthy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43B

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 851/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi

Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

purview of section 32(l)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation. The decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue is hereby reversed.” [Emphasized by us] 7 ITA NO.850/MUM/2020(A.Y.2014-15) ITA NO.851/MUM/2020(A.Y.2015-16 Following the decision rendered in the case

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi

Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 849/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi

Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

ACIT, Central Circle1(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Peninsula Land Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5632/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahaman, Accountat Member Ita No. 5632 & 5633/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Acit, Cc – 1(3) Vs. M/S Peninsula Land 905, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, No. 2, Peninsula (Annexe), M.K .Road, Spenta, Mathuradas Mumbai – 400020. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Parel, Mumbai- 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5173A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Aditya Rai. Dr Respondent By : Shri. Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Aditya Rai. DRFor Respondent: Shri. Vijay Mehta.AR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

relevant portion of the said judgment in this regard is reproduced hereunder:- "5. We are broadly in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) with respect to the nature of disputed purchases of steel. It may be that the three suppliers from whom the assessee claimed to have ... total sale is accepted by the Assessing Officer, he could not have questioned the very basis of the purchases. In essence therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) believed assessee's theory that the purchases were not bogus but were made from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of accounts

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das

Section 115OSection 14A

outstanding loan will be recovered from the assessee. Pertinently, while sustaining a part of the adjustment made by the TPO, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has equated the letter of comfort/support to corporate guarantee. In our view, on perusal of the letter of comfort/support, it cannot be construed ... number 2754/M/2014 and ITA number 4203/M/2014 by coordinate bench as Under:- “38. In ground No. 5, revenue has challenged the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing assessee's claim of additional depreciation. 39. Briefly the facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

Asad Hussain Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO -30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated (supra)

ITA 1006/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69A

assessee had already filed the appeal in paper form because of system glitch. It is not expected from an officer at the rank of commissioner (appeals) to take an adversarial view on such technical glitch/ignorance of the assessee, as it will lead to miscarriage of justice

DCIT Circle- 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjivaini Parenteral Ltd., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Oilcake Industries vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj), it was held as under: "Thus, it is apparent that both the commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing officer that the apparent ITA Nos. 415 to 4154/M/19 & CO nos.57 to 59/M/20 ... light of the aforesaid nature of evidence, it is not possible to record a different conclusion, different from the one recorded by the commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal concurrently holding that the apparent sellers were not genuine, or were acting as conduit between the assessee firm and the actual sellers

DCIT, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S- Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4152/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Sambhavnath Infrabuild and Farms Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2117/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sambhavnath Infrabuild & Farms Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle 7(3) Successor To Bellissimo Realtors Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 412, Floor–4, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 17G Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji Mk Road, Patel Road, Mumbai-400 020 Horniman Circle, Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs 1394 M

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvam, DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143

such discretion should be reasonable and in accordance with the law. According to the provisions of Section 251 (1) of the act, the learned Commissioner (appeals) has been granted the power of reducing the assessment. Merely directing assessee to relegate to an alternative remedy at the highest forum of CBDT

Elim Resort Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Elim Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.175, Nettigere Village, Ward – 3(2)(2), Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Aadce 0682 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.02.2020 Of Cit(A)-2, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2016-17. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To Disallowance Of Depreciation On Buildings Of Rs.3,19,208/-. The Opening Wdv As On 01.04.2014 & As On 01.04.2015 As Per The Books Of Accounts Of The Assessee Was As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 32Section 43(1)

this regard nor did it debit the amount as an expenditure in the Profit & Loss Account. The assessing officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) (‘Commissioner (Appeals)’) nevertheless disallowed the amount and added it back to the income of the assessed. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that

New Metal Refinery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2616/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2614 To 2616/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) New Metal Refinery India बनाम/ Dcit-5(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. 132, Appa Building, S.V.P. Line, Mumbai-400020. Road, Null Bazar, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn9710C (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh S. Shah Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order, Even Though In The Cause-Title Of The Impugned Order, It Is Shown That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Have Appeared For The Assessee. In Order To Demonstrate That It Was An Exparte Order, He Drew Our Attention To Para No. 7.2 Of The Impugned Order Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Observed That The Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing Time To Time & That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Of Assessee Appeared For Hearing Time To Time & Requested For Adjournments Which Were Granted But He Could Neither Make Any

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 147

favour of the assessee. 3. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment orders, that of the Commissioner (Appeals) and of the Tribunal are also set aside. The matter shall now be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, as aforestated. No order