SMT. YASHASHREE Y. NAIK, MUMBAI V. DCITC C(2),(2),

ITSSA 88/NAG/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8502 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS Y YAGNIK
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH G , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 88A/N/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SMT. YASHASHREE Y. NAIK ADVOCATE, HIG COURT 103, A,B, WING, POPULAR TERRACE, KASTUR PARK, SHIMPOLI ROAD, BORIVALI (W) MUMBAI-400 092. PAN NO. ADTPN 3357 Q VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2)(2) NAGPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MRS. Y. YAGNIK RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PAWAN VED DATE OF HEARING : 31.7.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.8.2012 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2007 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS INCLUDING THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE AO PASSING THE ORDER AND VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES IN THE MATTER. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE AO HAD PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 ON 29.12.2006 IN WHICH SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MA DE. WE ALSO IT(SS)A NO.88A/N/08 A.Y.05-06 2 FIND THAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY CIT(A), N O ONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND CIT(A) THEREAFTER DISPOSED OF THE MATTER EXPARTE. ORDER OF CIT(A) SHOWS THAT ONLY ONE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED, AND THEREAFTER EXPARTE ORDER WAS PASSED AS NO ONE APPEARED. THERE IS NO MENTION OF DATE OF NOTICE OR WHETHER NOTI CE WAS ACTUALLY SERVED AND EXPARTE ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED. UNDER THESE CI RCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS G IVEN TO THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN PA SSED EXPARTE. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY CIT(A). WE, THEREF ORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE SAME BACK TO HIM FOR P ASSING A FRESH ORDER AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.08.2012 SD/- SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJENDRA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 10.08.2012. JV. IT(SS)A NO.88A/N/08 A.Y.05-06 3 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.