NEW BOMBAY MERCHANTS COMMON WAREHOUSE LTD., NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1382/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8920 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1382/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2012-13) New Bombay Merchants Common Warehouse Limited 124, Central Facility Building APMC Mkt. – I Phase-II, Turbhe Navi Mumbai - 400706 PAN: AABCN1018K v. Income Tax Officer – 15(2)(2) Room No. 15B, Ground Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Ms. Kranti Yadav Date of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–24, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 20.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Assessee has raised following ground in his appeal: - 2 ITA NO. 1382/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2012-13) New Bombay Merchants Common Warehouse Limited “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A)-24 erred in dismissing the appeal by making observation that the appellant did not pursue the appeal without appreciating the fact that the submissions were duly made before him by the appellant. The Appellant prays that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A)-24 be set aside and the appeal be remitted back to the Ld. CIT (A)-24 for deciding the appeal afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A)-24 erred in law and is not justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 21,00,000/- made by the assessing officer being treated as unexplained expenditure by the assessing officer. The Appellant prays that the impugned addition made in respect of the said amount be deleted.” 3. Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Thus, I proceed to dispose off this appeal on hearing Ld.DR on merits. 4. Heard Ld.DR, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, I find that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions assessee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice I am of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication 3 ITA NO. 1382/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2012-13) New Bombay Merchants Common Warehouse Limited in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the virtual court on 10.11.2021. Sd/- (C.N. PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 10/11/2021 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum