What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. For just and proper decision and ends of justice, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to respond to notices and provide submissions. The ITAT noted that notices to the assessee were returned with 'incomplete address/not known'.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be decided on merits or dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear or provide submissions, and whether a remand is appropriate in such circumstances.

M/S. Fairmont Venture P. Ltd vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC‘

For Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi

Hearing: 31/08/2023Pronounced: 31/08/2023

आदेश / O R D E R

PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30/01/2023 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y.2010-11.

M/s. Fairmont Venture Pvt. Ltd. 2. At the outset, it is observed that notices sent to the assessee have been returned back by the Postal Authorities with the remarks ‘incomplete address/ not known, which goes to show that Assessee is not situated at the address mentioned in Form No.36 , hence I am constrained to decide this appeal ex-parte.

In this case, the AO vide Assessment Order dated 02/12/2017 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act made the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- being 1% of Rs.2,50,00,000/- as commission estimated, against which the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner who, though issued various notices for hearing on 26/12/2018, 21/05/2019, 10/08/2020, 04/01/2021 and 01/11/2022 for furnishing submissions and evidences in support of grounds of appeal filed before him. However, the assessee neither responded to the notices nor filed any submission and also made no request for adjournment, therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. I observe that the ld. Commissioner has not decided the appeal on merits, hence, for just and proper decision of the case and for the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to remand the instance case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, hence the case is remanded accordingly.

M/s. Fairmont Venture Pvt. Ltd.

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

Order pronounced on 31 August, 2023.

M/S. FAIRMONT VENTURE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-9(3)(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments