Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Sachin Joshi, Mumbai vs Acit , Circle - 26(3), Mumbai on 24 July, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
आयकर अपील सं / I.T.A. No.3872/Mum/2019
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)
Mr. Sachin Joshi बिधम/ ACIT Cirlce 26(3)
5th Floor, JMJ House, Near Vs. Mumbai.
Delphi Building, Orchard
Avenue, Hiranandani Estate
Road, Mumbai-400076.
स्थायी लेखा सं ./जीआइआर सं ./PAN/GIR No. : ADZPJ8537D
(अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)
Revenue by: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Singh (Sr. AR)
Assessee by: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 22/07/2019
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/07/2019
आदे श / O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -38, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] relevant to the A.Y.2013-
14.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: -
"1. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has given only one opportunity to cure the defects n the appeal e-filed with her and the appellant submits that she ought to have ITA No. 3872/M/2019 A.Y.2013-14 given reasonable opportunity to cure the defects mentioned by her hence, the impugned ex parte order is unwarranted. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated ground of appeal."
3. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. In fact, the Ld. Representative of the assessee did not argue the case on merits but argued on this point that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy without hearing the assessee, therefore, the matter of controversy is liable to be restored before the CIT(A) in accordance with law. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. Copy of order dated 13.03.2019 is on the file which speaks that the CIT(A) has passed the order in the absence of the assessee/Ld. Representative of the assessee. Moreover, we also find that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on technical grounds as the assessee has failed to upload the order u/s 143(3) for the A.Y 2013-14, demand notice, challan notice, challan for payment of appeal fees etc, therefore, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the basis of technical ground and without deciding the case on merits. The order nowhere seems to justifiable.
4. For this proposition we place reliance upon the following case laws.
(1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC)
5. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on all the issues and 2 ITA No. 3872/M/2019 A.Y.2013-14 restored the matter before the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SHAMIM YAHYA) (AMARJIT SINGH)
ले खध सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; ददनां क Dated : 24/07/2019.
vijay
आदे श की प्रनिनलनि अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु क्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-
4. आयकर आयु क्त / CIT
5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यादपत प्रदत //True Copy// उि/सहधिक िंजीकधर /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आिकर अिीलीि अनर्करण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai 3