MRS. RIA MANISH PARDASANI, MUMBAI V. ACIT 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 868/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3326 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 868/MUM/2020 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2013 - 14 MRS. RIA MANISH PARDASANI, 801, LAXMI NIWAS, 16 TH ROAD, KHAR (WEST), MUMBAI - 400052 PAN: AHDPP1963D VS. THE ACIT - 12(3)(2), AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRATEEK JAIN (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI BHARAT ANDHLE (DR ) DATE OF HEARING : 09/09 /202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 / 09 /202 1 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY , JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 18.11.2019 OF LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) - 20 , MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 . 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 10 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT S EEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT. 3. HAVING CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED ASSESSEES AFFIDAVIT , WE ARE SATISFIED THAT T H E DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WA S DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE. 2 ITA NO. 868 / MUM/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 1 4 ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT T HE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERIT. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE AS THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 19.12.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 12,31,840/ - . ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS COMPLETE D UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 09.03.2016 DETERMINING THE TO TAL INCOME AT RS. 2,04,77,190/ - . V ARIANCE IN THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL INCOME WAS DUE TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIM ED UNDER SECTION 5 4F OF THE ACT . AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED, ASSESSE E PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPOSE D OF ASSESSEES APPEAL EX - PARTE AND WHILE DOING SO HE SUSTAINED THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO . 5. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED , WITHOUT PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY AN EX - PARTE ORDER. THUS, HE SUBMITTED, THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HER CASE PROPERLY. 6. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , THOUGH , SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY GRANTED BY LEARNED COMMISS IONER (APPEALS). HOWEVER, HE DID NOT HAVE SERIOUS OBJECTION AGAI NST RESTORATION OF THE MATTER TO LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 7. HAVING CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE DISPUTE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE O F DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS 3 ITA NO. 868 / MUM/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 1 4 SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE WHILE DECIDING ASSESSEES APPEAL EX - PARTE. FROM THE OBSERVATIONS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN PARAGRAPH 4.1, IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOT ICE OF HEARING ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE RETURN ED BACK UN - SERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTICES WERE NEVER ISSUED TO THE A SSESSEE IN THE PROPER ADDRESS. NEVERTHELESS , IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE DES ERVES A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABL ISH HER CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, WHICH SHE WAS UNABLE TO DO DUE TO EX - PARTE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 8. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE THE LATEST ADDRESS FOR COMMUNICATION OF HEARING NOTICES AND CO - OPERATE IN EFFECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY MAKING PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH SEPTEMBER , 2021 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJESH KUMAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 27 / 09 /202 1 ALINDRA, PS 4 ITA NO. 868 / MUM/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 1 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUAR D FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI