Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Mohamed Reza Kabul, Mumbai vs Jt Cit Rg 16(3), Mumbai on 24 May, 2017
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई " जे" खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -"J"Bench Mumbai सव ी राजे ,ले लेखा सद य एवं, राम लाल नेगी, ी याियक सद य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3508/Mum/2015, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Mohammed Reza Kabul Jt. CIT, Range-11 (3) Plot No.78A, 2nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Turner Road, Bandra (W) Vs. Mumbai.
Mumbai-400 050.
PAN:AACPK 6324 P
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent)
Revenue by: Ms. Arju Goradia-Sr.DR
Assessee by: Shri Vipul Joshi
सुनवाई क तारीख / Date of Hearing: 05.04.2017
घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 24.05.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 अिधिनयम क धारा 254(1)केके अ तग त आदे श Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद य राजे के अनुसार /PER RAJENDRA, AM-
Challenging the order dated 27.2.2015 of CIT (Appeals)-7, Mumbai, the Assessee has filed the present appeal. Assessee, an individual filed his return of income on 22.9.2010, declaring total income at Rs.2.30 crore. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 145/144 of the Act on 28.3.2013, determining his income at Rs.2.90 crores.
2.Vide his letter dated 4.6.2015, the Assessee had made an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 to accept additional evidences. In his application, it is mentioned that the appeal was filed before the FAA when he was out of India, that he had authorized his chartered Accountant to file the appeal, that he had filed paper book along with written submissions before the FAA, that on 24.09.2014, the FAA stated that the Appeal was not signed by the assessee and hence not admissible, that later on, the successor FAA issued a notice for hearing, that on 30.01.2015, CA of the assessee along with the Authorised Representative (AR) appeared before the FAA, that at that time, no issue was raised about the letter of authority inspite of the specific noting in the order sheet, that appeal was partly heard on merit on 30.01.2015, that on 27.2.2015, the appeal was partly heard, that on that date also there was no discussion about the admissibility of the appeal, that is why his order dated 27.2.2015, was received on 13.4.2015, the FAA dismissed the appeal holding that same was not signed by the assessee himself. It was further stated that the assessee had no occasion to say anything about the admissibility of the appeal or to place on record copies of his passport 3508/M/15(10-11) Mohamed Reza Kabul to show that he was out of India during the material period,that in the interest of natural justice, the additional evidences produced by him should be taken into consideration.
3.Before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assesee reiterated the arguments that are part of application filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. He further stated ex-parte order passed by the AO and rejection of book results was against the principles of natural justice,that there was no opportunity to plead his case before any of the authorities. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed addition of additional evidences and stated that FAA had rightly rejected appeal filed by the assessee.
4.We find that the assessee was not in India, that he had left India on 17.04.2013 and returned on 30.04.2013 (pages 37 to 39) of the paper book. We further find that the FAA on 28.8.2014 had partly heard the appeal and had adjourned it to 24.09.2014, that on 30.01.2015 his successor mentioned that the main issue in the appeal was on account of change of method of accounting.Chronology of events clearly show that the claim made by the assessee in the application is factually correct.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that FAA should have decided appeal on merits or should have pointed out the defects during the first hearing of appeal.The assessee had shown a reasonable cause for not signing the appeal, therefore, in the interest of justice, we are restoring the matter to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication.He is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, effective ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee in part.
As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed in part.
फलतः िनधा रती ारा दािखल क गई अपील अंशतः मंजूर क जाती है.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th , May, 2017.
आदेश क घोषणा खुले !यायालय म$ %दनांक 24 मई, 2017 को क गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
(राम लाल नेगी / Ram Lal Negi) (राजे / Rajendra)
याियक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद
य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबईMumbai; %दनांक/Dated :24.05.2017.
Jv.Sr.PS.
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant /अपीलाथ( 2. Respondent /)*यथ(
3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब- अपीलीय आयकर आयु., 4.The concerned CIT /संब- आयकर आयु.
5.DR "J " Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय )ितिनिध, खंडपीठ,आ.अ.!याया.मुंबई
6.Guard File/गाड फाईल स*यािपत )ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai.
2