BHAGWATILAL B. MANDOVRA HUF, MUMBAI V. ITO 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5566/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7859 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEENA SANTOSH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5566/M/2016 (AY 2008 - 2009) BHAGWATILAL B MANDOVRA HUF, 43, TANK BUILDING, 3 RD FLOOR, BHULESHWAR ROAD, MUMBAI 400 002. / VS. ITO - 14(1)(1), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAEHM2367L ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : MS. BEENA SANTOSH, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 09.02.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 .03.2017 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 14.9.2016 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 29, MUMBAI DATED 24.6.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. 2. BEFORE ME, NONE APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ISSUES INVOLVE D, I PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL WITH THE HELP OF THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE IN THE FOLLOWING PARAS OF THIS ORDER. 3. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS IN TOTO. AT THE OUTSET, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO GROUND NO.1 AND MENTIONED THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE IN THE SAID GROUND REQUIRES ATTENTION OF THE BENCH. ON GOING THROUGH THE GROUND NOS. 1, 2 AND 3, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED ON THE ISSUE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN MATTERS OF NOT DISPOSING OF THE OBJECT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FOR NON - GRANTING OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (IND IA) LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS 259 ITR 19 (SC) . LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL . 2 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS AS WELL AS THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR REOPENING THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT, I FIND, THIS IS A CASE OF NON - DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE FILED OPPOSING THE AOS ATTEMPT TO RE - OPEN THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT. IN MY VIEW, GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REASONABLE AND THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY I ORDER. REGARDING THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE (GROUNDS NO. 5 TO 8), I AM OF THE OPINION THESE GROUNDS SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER APPLYING THE GUIDELINES SPECIFIED IN THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFT (SUPRA). AO SHALL GRANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. GROUNDS NO. 5 TO 8 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 1 S T MARCH, 2017. S D / - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 31.03.2017 . . ./ 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