URMILA RATANLAL SUD, MUMBAI V. ITO 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3221/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2777 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VASANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SANJAY GARG, (JM) . . , , / I.T. A. NO . 3221 / MUM/20 1 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 8 - 09 ) SMT.URMILA RATANLAL SUD, PLOT NO. 178, RATTAN NIWAS, SHER - E - PUNJAB SOCIETY, MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI, MUMBAI - 400093. / VS. INCOME TAX O FFICER, 20(3)(1), 605 PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALB AUG, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400012 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN : AAYPS3730K / APP ELLANT BY SHRI R N VASANI / RESPONDENT BY SHRI ABHINAY KUMBHAR / DATE OF HEARING : 29.10 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 9 . 10 .2015 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL BY TH E ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.2.2014 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 31, MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE AO FOR THE REASONS BEYOND HER CONTROL AND FURTHER SHE COULD NOT FILE NECESSARY MATERIAL S BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO CHALLENGE THE ADDITION S MADE BY T HE AO. ACCORDINGLY HE PRAYED ITA NO.3221/MUM/2014 2 THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.AR PRAYED THAT ALL THE MATTERS MAY BE SET ASIDE TO T HE FILE OF THE AO. 3 . THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PLEA PUT FORTH BY T HE LD. AR. 4 . HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS , WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT , IN THE INTEREST OF NATUR AL JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HER CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY CO - OPERATE WITH THE AO BY FURNI SHING ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS THAT MAY BE CALLED FOR BY THE AO FOR SPEEDY AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. P RONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 TH OCT , 2015 . 2 9 TH OCT , 2015 SD SD ( / SANJAY GARG ) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 2 9 TH OCT, 2015 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI