KALABEN PRAMOD SHAH, MUMBAI V. ITO-27(2)(1), VASHI

ITA 1105/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Kalaben Pramod Shah, a senior citizen, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13. The appeals were consolidated due to identical facts and grounds. The primary contention was the ex parte nature of the orders passed against the assessee, who was unaware of the ongoing tax proceedings until contacted by the Centralized Processing Centre in Bangalore. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of response to earlier notices due to her and her late husband's health issues, leading to the original assessments being made under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the assessee to present her case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132049 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k eqacbZ ihB ß,pÞ eaqcbZ Jh fodkl voLFkh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa lqJh पद्मावती ,l-] ys[kkdkj lnL; ds le{k IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” BENCH BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk-vk-la- 1103@eaqcbZ@2023 ¼fu-oa- 2010&11½ ITA No.1103/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2010-11) vk-vk-la- 1105@eaqcbZ@2023 ¼fu-oa- 2012&13½ ITA No.1105/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) Kalaben Pramod Shah G-6, Lal Ashish Building, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400 077 PAN No. AAMPS4027P ..... vihykFkhZ/Appellant cuke Vs. ITO-(27) (2) (1), 3 rd & 4 th Floor, Vashi Railway Station Vashi-400 703 ..... izfroknh/Respondent vihykFkhZ }kjk@Appellant by : Shri Pankaj Mall, CA izfroknh }kjk@Revenue by : Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. AR lquokbZ dh frfFk@Date of hearing : 03/07/2023 ?kks”k.kk dh frfFk@Date of pronouncement : 03/07/2023 vkns’k/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2012-13, respectively. Both the impugned orders are of even date, that is P a g e | 2 ITA No.1103/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2010-11) ITA No.1105/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) KALABEN PRAMOD SHAH 19.12.2022. Since, the facts and the grounds of appeal in both appeals are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication. 2. Shri Pankaj Mall appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the assessee is a senior citizen, age around 76 years. The husband of the assessee use to maintain accounts and file return of income of the assessee. After the demise of her husband on 01.07.2020, she is absolutely unaware of the tax proceedings and have no clue about the trading activities being carried out in her name. The assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as neither the assessee nor her husband could respond to the notices on account of ill-health. An appeal was filed against the assessment order dated 20.03.2015. The said appeal was filed and followed up by assessee’s husband. He was also suffering from failing health and age related issue. The assessee was not even aware of any pending tax proceedings, it was only when the assessee received a phone call from CPC, Bangalore, the assessee came to know about outstanding demand and pending Income Tax Proceedings. The assessee through her representative sought time to furnish the details before the CIT(A). However, before the assessee could furnish the details, the impugned order was passed. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) prayed for an opportunity to furnish the documents and explain the transactions. 3. Per contra, Smt. Usha Gaikwad representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee by the CIT(A). However, assessee failed to respond to repeated notices. A perusal of the P a g e | 3 ITA No.1103/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2010-11) ITA No.1105/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) KALABEN PRAMOD SHAH impugned order would show that the opportunity as sought by the assessee was allowed. However, the assessee failed to respond thereafter. 4. Both sides heard. The assessee is in appeal against an ex parte order by the First Appellate Authority. The assessee is a senior citizen of more than 75 years of age. During assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to respond to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and even to subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer (AO) was constraint to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 20.03.2015. After institution of appeal, husband of the assessee who was ostensibly looking after income tax affairs and the investments/trading activity on behalf of assessee died on 01.07.2020. Taking into consideration entire facts, we deem it appropriate to restore the entire proceedings back to the AO. The assessee is directed to furnish ‘Computation of Income’ supported by documentary evidences before the AO. The AO shall make de novo assessment after granting reasonable opportunity to assessee to make submissions, in accordance with law. 5. The assessee is directed to comply with the notice(s) issued by the AO. In case, the assessee fails to respond, the AO is at liberty to take adverse view. 6. The impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in terms aforesaid. P a g e | 4 ITA No.1103/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2010-11) ITA No.1105/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) KALABEN PRAMOD SHAH ITA No.1105/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) 7. Both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts in appeal for AY 2012-13 are identical to the facts in AY 2010-11. Since, the grounds raised in appeal and the facts germane to the issue are identical to AY 2010-11, the findings given while adjudicating the appeal of assessee for AY 2010-11 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present appeal. 8. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, for parity of reasons. 9. To sum up, appeal of the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 3 rd day of July 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PADMAVATHY S) (VIKAS AWASTHY) Yks[kkdkj lnL;/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;kf;d lnL;/JUDICIAL MEMBER eaqcbZ/Mumbai, fnukad/Dated: 03/07/2023 Mahesh R. Sonavane P a g e | 5 ITA No.1103/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2010-11) ITA No.1105/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) KALABEN PRAMOD SHAH izfrfyih vxzsf”kr Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkh/The Appellant , 2. izfroknh/The Respondent. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr/ CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfu/kh] vk;- vih- vf/k-] eqacbZ/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. xkMZ QkbZy/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy. /Asst. Registrar)/ Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai