ANURADHA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., Mumbai V. ITO WARD 12 (1), Mumbai

ITA 4792/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7280 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 20

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4792 /MUM/ 2019 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2015 - 16 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI SMC BENCH, MUMBAI [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) A ND RAM LAL NEGI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ] ITA NO. 4792 /MUM/ 2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015 - 16 ANURADHA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. .APPELLANT B - 301, VINI CLASSIC, NEXT TO RNA COMPLEX, M. G. ROAD, KANDIVALI (W), MUMBAI - 400 067 [PAN: AAICA 0323 K ] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1)(2) ..........RESPONDENT MUMBAI APPEARANCES BY DHARMESH SHAH FOR T HE AP P ELLANT AVNEESH TIWARI FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 31 , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNC EMENT : JANUARY 31, 2020 ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VP : 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE - APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 0 7 .0 5 .201 9 , PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 20 , MUMBAI, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16. 2. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AN EX PARTE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 16.01.2020 THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 22.04.2019 WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE ITA NO. 4792 /MUM/ 2019 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2015 - 16 PAGE 2 OF 3 NOTICE. H E HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE MATTER BEING SENT BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A), HE WILL ENSURE SCRUPULOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF HEARING. 3. THE LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD . CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER AND THAT THE ASSESSEE S NON COMPLIANCE IS DUE TO NO NOTICE HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM. CLEARLY THUS, T HE LD. C IT(A) HAS PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL DESERVE TO BE ACCEPTED. HENCE, WE ACCEPT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 31 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 SD/ - SD/ - RAM LAL NEGI PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (VICE PRESIDENT) MUMBAI , D ATED THE 31 ST D AY OF JANUARY, 2020 ROSHANI, SR. PS COPIES TO : (1) THE APPLICANT (2) THE RESPONDEN T (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI