NAGRAJ K. MEHTA, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 20(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1250/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6680 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PITAMBAR DAS
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1250/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 NAGRAJ K MEHTA, B/32, GROUND FLOOR, NEW EMPIRE INDL ESTATE, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI- 400 059 PAN :AAACB 3298 C VS. ADDL., CIT, 20(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.K.PARIDA/SMT.SUNJUKTA CHOUDHARY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PITAMBAR DAS DATE OF HEARING : 12.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.06.2014 O R D E R PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-31, MUMBAI DATED 21.01.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH RELATE TO THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE AO. IT IS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), EVEN AFTER THE NOTICES FIXING THE APPEAL FOR HEARING HAS BEEN DULY SERVED, NOBODY ATTENDED THE HEARING NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED. THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER RECO RDING THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL EX PARTE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDE R, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD.AR HAS STATED THAT SINCE THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF SHIFTING THE RESIDENCE, PROPER REPRESENTATION HAS N OT BEEN MADE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND THUS THE LD.AR HAS PRAYED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY THE LD.CIT(A) SO THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN JUSTIFY THE CLAIM. ON THE OTH ER HAND, THE LD.DR HAS POINTED OUT THAT ITA NO. 1250/MUM/2012 NAGRAJ K MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 2 THE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT JUSTIFI ED BUT ONLY INDICATE THE NON- COOPERATING ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD, THOUGH THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD.AR ARE NOT COMPLETELY CONVI NCING US FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCES OF THE NOTICES DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, HAVIN G DUE REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WILL BE JUST AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATI ON OF THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EES PLACING ALL THE MATERIALS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE REASONS CITED BY THE LD.AR FOR THE NON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONVINCING, AS AGREED BY THE LD.AR, WE IMPOSE A COST OF RS.5000/- ON THE ASSESSEE TO BE PAID TO THE REVENUE. AFTER PRODUCING THE RECEIPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE SAID COST, THE L D.CIT(A) WILL HEAR THE APPEAL AFRESH IN THE AFORESAID MANNER. WE DIRECT AND ORDER ACCORDING LY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014. //SD// / /SD// (SANJAY ARORA) (DR.S.T.M.PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 12.06.2014. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR B BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MU MBAI.