MR. HARISH JAIN, MUMBAI V. THE DY CIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 194/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2059 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AZHAR ZAIN
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच” मुंबई ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एम.बालागनेश, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.194/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2013-14) ITA No. 194/MUM/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) Harish Jain, C-1801, Gundecha Gardens, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. PAN: AAAPJ7613G ...... अपीलाथŎ /Appellant बनाम Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(4), 802, Old CGO Building, Mumbai-400020. ..... Ůितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Sh. Vijay Mehta Ůितवादी Ȫारा/Respondent by : Sh. Azhar Zain सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 03/02/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 03/02/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 19.03.2020 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. Sh. Vijay Mehta appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that while adjudicating appeal of the assessee, the CIT(A) has not 2 आअसं. 194/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2013-14) ITA No. 194/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2013-14) afforded proper opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, written submissions made by the assessee dated 21.09.2017 filed before previous incumbent were referred to in the order but no opportunity of hearing was allowed to the assessee before passing the impugned order. The ld. AR pointed that notice of hearing of appeal was issued to the assessee in August 2017. In response to said notice the assessee filed written submission on 21.09.2017, thereafter, there was change in incumbent CIT(A). The new incumbent passed the order after two and a half years of furnishing written submission without affording opportunity of hearing. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) in order to substantiate his contentions referred to the notice issued by CIT(A) dated 31.08.2017 at page no.1 of the Paper Book (PB). The ld. AR pointed that the said notice was issued by Ms Vidisha Kalra, CIT(A), Mumbai-48, whereas, the impugned order was passed by Sh. Pratap Singh, CIT(A) after almost two and a half years after filing of the submissions. 3. On the other hand, Sh. Azhar Zain representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the order after considering the submissions of the assessee, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the assessee. 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the assessee had furnished written submissions before the CIT(A) on 21.09.2017. Thereafter, no notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. The fact of any notice of hearing is neither borne out from the impugned order nor has the revenue placed on record any document to show that indeed an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the assessee. Further, we note that in 2017 when the assessee had furnished written submissions 3 आअसं. 194/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2013-14) ITA No. 194/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2013-14) some other incumbent was holding the charge of CIT(A), Mumbai-48, whereas, the order has been passed by the successor of the incumbent who had issued the notices. 5. Taking into consideration entirety of fact, and without commenting on merit of issue raised in grounds of appeal, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. 6. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 3 rd day of February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/ Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 03/02/2022 S.K., Sr. PS Ůितिलिप अŤेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/The Appellant , 2. Ůितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ(अ)/ The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयुƅ CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai