World Malayalee Council Mumbai Province , Mumbai V. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 2623/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8680 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KUSHAL RATHOD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2623/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 World Malayalee Council Mumbai Province 311, Sagar Tech Plaza, B Wing, Saki Naka Mumbai- 400072. Vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 2(4) Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400012 PAN No. AAAAW2369M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Kushal Rathod Revenue by : Shri. Kishor Dhule, CIT.DR Date of Hearing : 14/02/2024 Date of pronouncement : 19/02/2024 ORDER PER : OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ In short the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2016-17, raising following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer 87,61,000/ fund, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal. 2. We have heard rival submission of the parties issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In support of the ground no. 1 submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had issued various notices for hearing of the appeal on email , whereas the relevant employee has denied of having received any email from the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel has filed a confirmation from said employee stating that no email received by her from the Income Ld. Counsel submitted that in form no. 35 prescribed for filing appeal before the ld CIT(A), had provided another email Ms. Latha Prasad for hearing had been issued on her email submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex made an addition of Rs. 87,61,000/ transferred to corpus fund, without taking into consideration World Malayalee Council Mumbai without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in making as addition of Rs ,000/- on account of donation transferred to corpus fund, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal. We have heard rival submission of the parties issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In support of the ground no. 1, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had issued various notices for hearing of the appeal on email-id [e-mail] whereas the relevant employee has denied of having received any email from the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel has filed a confirmation from said employee stating that no email her from the Income-tax Department Ld. Counsel submitted that in form no. 35 i.e. the proforma prescribed for filing appeal before the ld CIT(A), had provided another email [e-mail] Ms. Latha Prasad i.e. another employee, but none of the hearing had been issued on her email-id. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte order and made an addition of Rs. 87,61,000/- on accou transferred to corpus fund, without taking into consideration World Malayalee Council Mumbai Province. 2 ITA No. No. 2623/M/2023 without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of in making as addition of Rs. on account of donation transferred to corpus fund, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had issued various notices for [e-mail] whereas the relevant employee has denied of having received any email from the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel has filed a confirmation from said employee stating that no email had been tax Department. Further, the i.e. the proforma prescribed for filing appeal before the ld CIT(A), the assessee [e-mail] of none of the notices id. The Ld. Counsel parte order and on account of donation transferred to corpus fund, without taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not 3. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of that there exists a notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order on the merit of the addition though under the provision of section 250(6) reasoned order even in absence of representation by the assessee. Therefore, and in interest of substantial justice, w restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh. Before us in form no 36 i.e. the form prescribed for filing appeal before the ITAT, as [e-mail] the Ld. CIT(A) may issue Counsel Shri Kushal Rathod who appeared an undertaking that notices issued on said email duly complied. In view of above ground no.1 appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4. Since, in the gr restored the back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) No. 2 also stands allowed for statistical purpose. World Malayalee Council Mumbai submission of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the not given any findings on merits of the issue. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of that there exists a sufficient reason for non compliance of issued by the Ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order on the merit of the addition though under the provision of section 250(6) , he is suppose order even in absence of representation by the assessee. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in interest of substantial justice, we feel it restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding Before us in form no 36 i.e. the form prescribed for filing appeal before the ITAT, the assessee has provided the Email [e-mail] for service of notice and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) may issue notices on this new email l Shri Kushal Rathod who appeared before us has given undertaking that notices issued on said email . In view of above ground no.1 appeal of the assessee is allowed. Since, in the ground no 1, the appeal has already the back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore ground 2 also stands allowed for statistical purpose. World Malayalee Council Mumbai Province. 3 ITA No. No. 2623/M/2023 submission of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the given any findings on merits of the issue. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of opinion reason for non compliance of e also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order on the merit of the addition though under supposed to pass a order even in absence of representation by the the facts and circumstances of the case it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding Before us in form no 36 i.e. the form prescribed for filing the assessee has provided the Email-id for service of notice and therefore notices on this new email-id. The Ld. before us has given undertaking that notices issued on said email should be . In view of above ground no.1 appeal of the the appeal has already therefore ground 2 also stands allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the op Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 19/02/2024 Shubham P. Lohar Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// World Malayalee Council Mumbai In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/02/2024. Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai World Malayalee Council Mumbai Province. 4 ITA No. No. 2623/M/2023 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for /02/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai