SOMNATH K LANDGE, NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1254/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2935 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI , ! ' , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA NO.1254/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 MR. SOMNATH K. LANDGE. BHOOMI ENTERPRISES, SHOP NO.8, HEERA CHSL, SECTOR 12, KHARGHAR, NAVI MUMBAI / VS. ITO22(3)-4, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO . AFFPD3240K $ % & / ASSESSEE BY NONE $ % & / REVENUE BY SHRI OM PRAKASH MEENA-DR / DATE OF HEARING 24/06/2016 & / DATE OF ORDER: 24/06/2016 ITA NO.1254/MUM/2015 SOMNATH K. LANDGE 2 & / O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/09/2014 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.35 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD W AS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ALSO AN EX-PARTE ORDER, WITHOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEA RING. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. DR, SHRI OM PRAKASH MEEN A, DEFENDED THE ADDITION AND ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT WA S THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO REMAIN PRESENT ON THE APPOI NTED DATE. 2.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE F ACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AL SO PROPRIETOR OF M/S BHOOMI ENTERPRISES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL/LABOUR JOB. THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER ADDED RS.35 LAKH, CLAIMED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAI N, TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT ON 12/08/2014 AND 22/08/2014, NOTICE S WERE ISSUED AND NOBODY REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSESSEE SID E, AN EX-PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEAL) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN CI T VS B.N. BHATTACHARYA (118 ITR 461). WITHOUT GOING INTO ITA NO.1254/MUM/2015 SOMNATH K. LANDGE 3 MUCH DELIBERATION, I FIND THAT THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ORDER WHETHER THE NOTICES WERE ACTUALLY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THUS, CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURA L JUSTICE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, THEREFORE, I REMAND THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EAL) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENC E, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT T HE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 24/06/2016. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ! ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 24/06/2016 F{X~{T? P.S / ! & $ )!*+ ,&+-* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '#$%& / THE APPELLANT 2. ' (%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ) * ( '#$ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ) ) * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -./ ' , ) '#$ ' 1 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO.1254/MUM/2015 SOMNATH K. LANDGE 4 6. /2 3$ / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, (-# ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI