M/S. C M ALLOYS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 6(2) (1), MUMBAI

ITA 1547/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1599 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri ABY T. Varkey (JM) I.T.A. No. 1547/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. C.M. Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 3304/A Wing, Magnum Tower, Chivada Galli Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. PAN : AABCC1090N Vs. ACIT-6(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date of Hearing 03.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 04.10.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the learned CIT(A)-12, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2015-16. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed that the Registry has sent the notice of hearing by registered post on more than one occasion and they have been returned back by the postal authority. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee. 3. We have heard learned DR and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee had challenged the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming (a) the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the I.T. Act and (b) the disallowance of depreciation. M/s. C.M. Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2 We also noticed that the assessee has not appeared before the learned CIT(A) despite the fact that the learned CIT(A) has sent notices on four occasions. Hence, the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte. We noticed that there was delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the Ld CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay. Further, he has also confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us also assessee did not appear. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. 5. We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte, without hearing the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present its case before the learned CIT(A), subject to payment of a cost. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of Income tax department within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of above cost, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file. The Ld CIT(A), after ensuring the payment of cost mentioned above, may decide the issues in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.10.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 04/10/2022 Copy of the Order forwarded to : M/s. C.M. Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 3 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai