SHALIN STAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3154/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 December 2023AY 2012-137 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication, accepting the explanation for non-compliance. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to a communication gap between the assessee and their representative. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits, and whether a communication gap justifies restoration of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 145(3),Section 69C,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G BENCH, MUMBAI

contentions raised vide Grounds of Appeal & the Statement of Facts cannot be taken on face value. Therefore, the above contentions of the appellant are without merit & are hereby rejected.” (Emphasis Supplied) On perusal of above, we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the 9. appeal holding that the contentions raised by the Appellant in the grounds of appeal and statement of facts were not supported by submissions and documentary evidence without dealing with specific factual and legal grounds raised by the Appellant. Thus, in effect, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by the Appellant which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF): [2016] 240 Taxman 133 (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay)[25-04-2016] wherein it has been held that the provisions of the Act do not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal preferred by an assessee on account of non-prosecution. On the other hand, the Appellant has also failed to comply with the notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A). However, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us has explained the circumstances and the reason for non- compliance of notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A) which we are inclined to accept. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the present case, subject to payment of cost of INR 5,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund or National Disaster Response Fund within seven days of the receipt of this order, we set aside the order, dated 17/08/2023, passed by the CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication as per law after granting Appellant sufficient opportunity of being heard. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 2 raised by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes while all the other grounds/contentions raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous at this stage.

In result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 10.

Order pronounced on 29.12.2023.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →