Palm Overseas, Mumbai V. Comissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Mumbai - 27 , 401,4th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi railway station commercial complex, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400703

ITA 1680/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Palm Overseas against a revision order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The revision proceedings were initiated during the COVID-19 period, and the notice was issued through the ITBA system, which the assessee failed to notice initially. Upon realizing the oversight, the assessee responded, but by then, the PCIT had already passed the order ex-parte. The assessee argued that the issue was merely a reconciliation of figures and requested another opportunity to explain before the CIT(A). The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the principles of natural justice, decided to set aside the PCIT's order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123950 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 1680/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Palm Overseas 408, Central Facility Building APMC Market-I, Phase II Vashi Masala Market Navi Mumbai-400 703. PAN : AAIFP4682K V s . CIT, PCIT-27 401, 4 th Floor Tower No. 6 Vashi Railway Station Commercial Complex, Navi Mumbai-400 703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar & Ms. Shipraa Tanna Department by Shri K.C. Salvamani D ate of He a rin g 12.01.2023 D ate of P r on ou nc em ent 12.01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revision order dated 17.3.2021 passed by Ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld PCIT has initiated revision proceedings on 22.2.2021, i.e., during the covid period. He submitted that the notice was issued by Ld PCIT under ITBA system, it has escaped the attention of the assessee and hence the assessee could not respond to the notice issued by Ld PCIT. Subsequently, the assessee came to know of the notice and it did reply to the notice issued by PCIT. However, by that time, the Ld PCIT had already passed the order u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, he submitted that the assessee did not get proper opportunity to represent its case before Ld PCIT. Palm Overseas 2 3. With regard to the issue on which the Ld PCIT had initiated revision proceedings, the Ld A.R submitted that it is only a matter of reconciliation of two different figures. He submitted that the assessee would be in a position to explain the difference before Ld CIT(A), if one more opportunity is given. 4. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the Ld PCIT was constrained to pass ex-parte order, since the assessee did not respond to the notice issued by Ld PCIT. Before us, the Ld A.R has explained the reasons for non-response and has also submitted that on merits, the assessee could convince the Ld PCIT on the issue discussed in the revision order. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present its case before Ld PCIT. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned revision order passed by Ld PCIT and restore all the issues to his file for examining them afresh. The assessee is also directed to extend full co-operation for the expeditious disposal of the revision proceedings. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the Ld PCIT may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 12.1.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (B.R. BASAKARAN) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai; Dated : 12/01/2023 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT Palm Overseas 3 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai