DEEPAK MAHNOT, MUMBAI V. DCIT 26(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2336/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3561 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ./I.T.A. NO.2336/M/2015 (AY: 2010 - 2011) DEEPAK MAHNOT, IST FLOOR, SUNBEAM CHAMBERS, 7 - C, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 400 020. / VS. DCIT, RANGE 26(2), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AGDPM3930G ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 29.06.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 .08.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 23.4.2015 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 46, MUMBAI DATED 27.11.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED U/S 144 IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE DELETE D. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ASSESSING YOUR APPELLANTS TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 47,10,950/ - AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 29,86,256/ - . 3. THE AO ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS. 47,10,950/ - AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 18,24,695/ - U/S 144. 2. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 29,86,256/ - . AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 47,10,950/ - WHICH INCLUDES CERTAIN ADDITIONS TOTALLING TO RS. 18,24,695/ - . AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 2 3. DURING THE PR OCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THEREFORE, THE ADJUDICATION WAS DONE EX - PARTE. MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NONE APPEARED TO R EPRESENT THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 28.6.2016 SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IS OUT OF TOWN, FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE IS ATTACHED TO BRIEF THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT IS REJECTED. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR AND GOING THROUGH THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL AS WELL AS ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, I FIND IT IS THE CASE OF EX - PARTE PROCEEDINGS AL L THROUGH . THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ALL THE GROUNDS SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. AO SHALL GRANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 5 T H AUGUST, 2016. S D / - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 2 5 .08.2016 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// 3 / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI