ABDUL AZIZ MERCHANT, MUMBAI V. ITO 16(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2947/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2766 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2947/M/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 2006 ) ABDUL AZIZ MERCHANT, 245/247 SVP ROAD, ALANKAR CINEMA BLDG, 4 TH FLOOR, MUMBAI 400 004. / VS. ITO - 16(3)(4), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AEVPM2351R ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.B. KOLI, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 29.08.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .09.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17.4.2013 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 5, MUMBAI DATED 17.1.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 2006. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN TOTO. IN THE GROUNDS, ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUE THAT THE C IT (A)S ORDER IS NOT PROPER SINCE THE SAME WAS PASSED WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE (GROUND NO.2). 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, NOBODY APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICE ON VARIO US DATES INCLUDING 29.7.2015, 9.2.2016 POSTING THE CASE TO 29.8.2016. BEFORE US, LD DR FAIRLY MENTIONED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WAS NOT APPRECIATED BY THE ASSESSEE INSOFAR AS THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE QUA THE QUALITY OF THE HEARING UNDERTAKE N DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN COLUMN NO.11 ON THE TITLE SHEET, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WAS PASSED WITHOUT HAVING ATTENDANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING 2 SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO MAKE ARRA NGEMENTS TO RECEIVE THE NOTICES FROM THE CIT (A) PROPERLY AND ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT FAIL. IF THE NON - COOPERATION CONTINUES, CIT (A) IS FREE TO PASS ANY ORDER THAT HE MAY DEEM FIT AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGL Y, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 R D SEPTEMBER, 2016. S D / - S D / - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 2 3 .09.2016 . . ./ 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// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI