MAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD,MUMBAI vs. DY DIRECTOR OF EXEMPTION - 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case properly.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed stay applications for outstanding demands across multiple assessment years. The CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders in all these years, and the assessee's written submissions were incomplete.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were in violation of natural justice, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM)
Heard together (21 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
O R D E R Per Bench:-
All these Stay Applications have been filed by the assessee seeking stay of outstanding demand raised in A.Y. 2003-04, 2006-07, 2010-11 to 2016-17 & 2018-19.
At the time of hearing of the Stay Applications, it was noticed that the learned CIT(A) has passed the orders of all the years under consideration ex- parte and details of opportunity given to the assessee have been tabulated by 3 Maharashtra Maritime Board the learned CIT(A) in paragraph 3 of his order. In some of the cases, even though the assessee has filed written submissions, but it appears that the written submissions pertain to some of the grounds only.
Under these set of facts, the Bench proposed to hear the appeals first. Both the parties agreed to the same. Accordingly all these appeals were heard. Since the learned CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte orders and since written submissions filed by the assessee in some of the case did not cover the entire issues urged before the learned CIT(A), we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present its case properly before the learned CIT(A). Both the parties agreed with the above said view expressed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly we set aside the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) in all the years under consideration and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeals.
Since we have disposed of the appeals, the Stay Applications filed by the assessee shall become infructuous. Accordingly we dismiss them.
In the result, all the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed and all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 15.12.2023.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026