RAJENDRA RAJAN ,MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 33(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4385/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rajendra Rajan, the appellant, who contested an order from the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which dismissed his appeal ex-parte regarding the addition of Rs. 33,90,000 as unaccounted cash under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A) had not adequately discussed the merits of the case in the ex-parte order and had not fully adhered to the procedural requirements under section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper discussion on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26505 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.R. MAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHASHANK MEHTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 143(1); 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4385/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Rajendra Rajan 104, Heritage Apartment, Near V.V.F Ltd, Behind Nirmal Industries Estate, Sion (East) 400022. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Circle 33(1), Room No. 949, 9th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051. PAN/GIR No. AATPN8383N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Mr. Shashank Mehta Revenue by Shri. R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 29/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A) 45, Mumbai/10236/2019-20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"Act\"] for ITA no. 4385/MUM/2024 Rajendra Rajan 2 the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte. 2. The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee filed his original return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.03.2018, declaring total income at Rs. 36,57,570/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. subsequently, case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee submitted the requisition details before learned assessing officer. After considering assessee’s submissions, learned assessing officer added Rs. 33,90,000/- as unaccounted cash u/s. 69A of the Act in the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte. 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 33,90,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act by passing ex-parte impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing. 6. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for both the parties. 7. Learned representative for the assessee has, at the very outset informed that impugned order has been passed by learned CIT(A) ex- parte in violation of the principles of natural justice. Prayed to set aside the impugned order. ITA no. 4385/MUM/2024 Rajendra Rajan 3 8. Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) but for no avail. Learned DR has supported impugned order. 9. We notice that the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the first appellate authority on seven occasions. However, it is further noticed that learned CIT(A) passed ex-parte impugned order without any substantial discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms. Impugned order dated 27.06.2024 is set aside. The case is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29.10.2024. Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no. 4385/MUM/2024 Rajendra Rajan 4 Mumbai; Dated 29/10/2024 Anandi Nambi, Steno Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// "