Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act: ITAT remands matter to provide fair opportunity of hearing [Read Order]

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) has remanded the matter concerning the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act to ensure a fair opportunity of hearing

Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act: ITAT remands matter to provide fair opportunity of hearing [Read Order]
X

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remanded the matter concerning the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act to ensure a fair opportunity of hearing. The assesse appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax who ruled against them based on the case's merit. This decision was influenced by the taxpayer's non-attendance at...


The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remanded the matter concerning the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act to ensure a fair opportunity of hearing.

The assesse appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax who ruled against them based on the case's merit. This decision was influenced by the taxpayer's non-attendance at four notified occasions. Commissioner of Income Tax upheld the conclusions made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) in the assesses absence. The assesse subsequently filed an appeal, asserting lack of opportunity to be heard and contesting the unwarranted addition to the assessment.

The counsel for the respondent Ashok Kumar Ambastha, had argued that the assesse failed to respond to various notices from the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) and couldn't be presented during the proceedings.

The counsels for the assessee K. Gopal and Om Kandalkar had contended that the assessee did not receive these notices or was unaware of them, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing, especially considering the assessee's role as a director in a share broking firm. On the merit, the Representative had asserted that the additions were unjustified.

The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Sandeep Sing karhail (Judicial member) and Prashant Maharishi ( Accountant Member ) concluded that, the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) highlighted the absence of explanations from the assessee, despite four notices, which had confirmed additions in the assessment. Ambiguity surrounded the receipt of notices due to a changed email ID. The assessee, though obligated to present its case, failed to do so before the Commissioner of Income Tax resulting in an unjust order.

The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purpose.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Next Story

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019