SUREKHA ARVIND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2288/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 October 2023AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) could not decide the case on merits due to the absence of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the NFAC. The NFAC had issued multiple notices to the assessee, but the assessee neither appeared nor filed any reply.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without deciding on merits is sustainable. Whether the case should be remanded for a fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, MS Smitha V. Nair
For Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair
Hearing: 05.10.2023Pronounced: 10.10.2023

Date of Hearing : 05.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.10.2023 O R D E R Per N. K. Choudhry, JM:

The Assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 28.04.2023 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {in short ‘NFAC’}/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “ Ld. Commissioner” u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, I observe that the impugned order is an ex- parte and before passing the same the ld. CIT(A) issued five notices starting from 6th Jan, 2021 onwards up to 4th Jan, 2023 however, the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any reply. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte but not on merits. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as the ld. CIT(A) in the absence of reply/documents to be filed by the Assessee, was unable to decide the case in proper manner, hence for just decision of the case and for the ends of justice, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the instant case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Accordingly the case is remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh.

The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notice(s) and appear if requires and file relevant document(s) which would be needed for proper and real adjudication of the case and in case of further default, the Assessee will not be entitled for any leniency.

3.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10-10-2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →