Bipin Amratlal Shah Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT find that ld.CIT(A) has taken up the appeal after three years of filing of the appeal and within a very short span of time has dismissed the appeal for non-persecution. The only reason to uphold the order of AO mentioned by the ld.CIT(A) is that no submission was made before him by the assessee. We find that the above is a non speaking, non reasoned and cryptic order, not sustainable in law. As a matter of facts, the income tax Act in section 251 of the I.T.Act dealing with the power of ld.CIT(A) does not provide for any power to the ld.CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. In these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) to give the assessee, an opportunity of being heard and thereafter, decide the appeal as per law by a speaking order. Ld. Counsel of the assessee agreed with the above proposition and undertook to cooperate with ld. CIT(A) when the matter is remanded.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, dated 27.05.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.
2. Grounds of appeal read as under:-
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-53, Mumbai has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 11,14,309/- u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-53, Mumbai has erred in confirming disallowance of interest on car loan of Rs. 1,93,267/-
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals)-53, Mumbai has erred in confirming ad hoc disallowance of following expenses merely on surmises and conjectures.
