KEKI D. MEHTA, MUMBAI V. ACIT 12(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2186/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1899 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP DAHIYA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR, SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 2 186/MUM/2009. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05. KEKI D. MEHTA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF PROP. M/S DARSHAW & COMPANY, VS. INCOME TAX -12(1), CENTRAL BANK BLDG., FORT, MUMBAI. MUMBAI 400 023. PAN : AACPM 6059R APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANDEEP DAHIYA. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-XII, MUMBAI DATED 13-01-2 009 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.5,58,075/- UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT OF THE CASE AND THE LAW APPLICABLE THERETO. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED OF RS.5,58,075/- SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE, TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OR BEFORE. 2 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE PROCESS OF COMPILING THE DETAILS. AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE APPLICATION, WE REJECT THE SAME AS IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR GRANTING YET ANOTHER ADJOURNMENT. THUS WE HAVE HEAR D THE LEARNED DR. MR. SANDEEP DAHIYA AND DISPOSED OF THE CASE EXPARTE , QUA THE ASSESSEE, ON MERITS. 3. HEARD THE LEARNED DR. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE , IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, STATES THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY HAS NOT GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY. ON A PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FI ND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ONLY ONE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS GIVEN, FIXING THE DA TE OF HEARING AS 25-09- 2008. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON A PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO 16-10- 2008 AND THEREAFTER THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY D ISPOSED OF THE CASE EXPARTE. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION THIS CASE HAS TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON GROUNDS OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SHALL PASS AN ORDER AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE SET ASIDE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. MUMBAI, DATED : 30 TH APRIL, 2010. WAKODE 3 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, A-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI.