AHALYA TRADING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO 12 (1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 274/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4469 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 ITA 274/Mum/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.274 /Mum/2019 (Assessment year : 2013-14) M/s Ahalya Trading Pvt Ltd 5, Bhagwati Apartments S.V. Road, Malad (W) Mumbai-400 064 PAN : AAACA5242K vs ITO-12(1)(2), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Bhupendra Shah Department represented by Shri K.P.R.R. Murty Date of hearing 22/03/2022 Date of pronouncement 18/04/2022 O R D E R Per: S.Rifaur Rahman (AM): This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 08/06/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The Ld.AR of the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee exparte thereby denying sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the Ld.AR prayed that one 2 ITA 274/Mum/2019 more opportunity may be given to the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) to present the case of the assessee. The Ld.DR opposed the prayer. 3. Heard the rival submissions. We notice that the Ld.CIT(A), detailing the number of opportunities of hearing provided to the assessee, decided the appeal exparte, on merits. Thus, in substance, he upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in verbatim. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Kattiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that when technicalities are pitted against each other substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. In the case on hand, we find that giving one more opportunity to the assessee before CIT(A) to present its case, would in no way harm either party. Rather, it would augument the cause of justice and fairplay. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to give another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after hearing the assessee, to decide the appeal on merit. The assessee is directed to prosecute its appeal before CIT(A) diligently. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 18 th April, 2022. Sd/- sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH ) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dt : 18 th April, 2022 Pavanan 3 ITA 274/Mum/2019 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. /The Appellant , 2. / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय (अ)/ The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आय CIT 5. िवभागीय ि ि ि , आय.अपी.अि ., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. फ इल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai