ITO (INTL. TAX)- WARD-3(1)(1), MUMBAI V. PHILIP ANDREW LOBO, MUMBAI

MA 190/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Philip Andrew Lobo, a Non-Resident Indian, who filed his income tax return for the Assessment Year 2010-11, declaring a total income of Rs.18,63,403. The return was selected for scrutiny, leading to an assessment order that made additions under sections 68 and 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) initially deleted these additions, but the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, citing a violation of natural justice as the CIT(A) had decided the issue without a fresh remand report from the A.O. Lobo's subsequent miscellaneous application sought to recall the Tribunal's order, arguing that the CIT(A) had properly adjudicated the appeal with new evidence. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this application, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive re-evaluation of the case with all parties given an opportunity to present their arguments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299563 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68; 143(3); 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM M A N o . 1 90/ M u m/ 20 2 2 ( A r is i n g o u t o f IT A N o. 43 6/ M u m/ 2 02 1) ( A s s e ss me nt Y ea r: 20 1 0- 11 ) Philip Andrew Lobo Room No. 1202, 12 th Floor, Vikas Park, Link Road, Mith Cowki Malad, Mumbai-400 064 V s. ITO (International Taxation)- Ward-3(1)(1) Room No. 1628, 16 th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 P A N / G I R N o. A E BP L 7 45 4 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : None Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh D a te o f H e a r i n g : 09.12.2022 D ate of P ro n ou n ce me n t : 06.03.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee/applicant u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act' for short), challenging the Tribunal’s order dated 25.02.2022, seeking for recall of the said order. 2. Since there was no representative on behalf of the assessee/applicant, we hereby proceed to decide the miscellaneous petition by hearing the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue and on perusal of the material available on record. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee/applicant a Non Resident Indian (‘NRI’ for short) filed his return of income for Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2010-11 dated 2 M A N o . 1 9 0 / M u m / 2 0 2 2 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 ) Philip Andrew Lobo vs. ITO (International Taxation) 26.09.2014, declaring total income at Rs.18,63,403/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 was passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, by making an addition u/s. 68 & 69 of the Act. 4. In an appeal filed by the assessee/applicant, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the A.O. 5. The Revenue was in appeal before the Tribunal which held that since the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue without calling for fresh remand report from the A.O. while deciding the issue, the tribunal remanded the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of all the grounds with a view that there was violation of principles of natural justice and Rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee/applicant filed this present miscellaneous application seeking for recalling of the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly adjudicated the grounds of appeals and has accepted the new evidence filed by the assessee/applicant u/s. 46 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal had restored the appeal back to the ld. CIT(A) for hearing the A.O. on the new evidence filed by the assessee/applicant. The assessee/applicant further stated that since the ld. CIT(A) was empowered to admit new evidence and to consider the issue based on that, the Tribunal’s order remanding the issue back to the ld. CIT(A) had caused undue hardship and irrecoverable loss to the assessee/applicant and had prayed for recalling the said order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the remand report filed in the second round of 3 M A N o . 1 9 0 / M u m / 2 0 2 2 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 ) Philip Andrew Lobo vs. ITO (International Taxation) litigation without calling for fresh report from the A.O. which according to the Tribunal was a violation of Rule 46 of Income Tax Rules. As the case of the assessee was reopened, wherein the assessee has relied on the certain documents/records, the ld. CIT(A) has not given an opportunity of hearing to the A.O. based on the said documents, we do not find any adversity in the order of the Tribunal in remanding the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication based on the new evidences filed by the assessee by giving an opportunity of hearing to the A.O. We find that the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee/applicant has no merits and we hereby dismiss the said miscellaneous application. 7. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee/applicant is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.03.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (B. R. Baskaran) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 06.03.2023 Roshani , Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai