M/S ARANDI INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1707/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 August 2023AY 2013-20143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground that they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case, especially considering notices were issued during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee company's appeal against the CIT(A) order was dismissed for non-compliance. The assessee claimed they were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, despite multiple opportunities granted by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a reasonable and proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) for effective adjudication.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Hearing: 08/08/2023Pronounced: 21/08/2023

O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee company against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 18.03.2023 for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

None appeared for the assessee. However, we take note of the ground no. 3 wherein the assessee has raised following ground: - “

3. That there was no reasonable and proper opportunity was given to the assessee company by Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi.”

3. Brief facts on the aforesaid ground of appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken note at para no. 3 of his impugned order that the assessee was granted time to furnish written submission and documents in support of its ground of appeal. But assessee failed to file it despite seven (7) opportunities given to it. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to pass the impugned order. It must be borne in 2 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Arandi Investment Pvt. Ltd. mind that if an assessee is aggrieved by the assessment order framed by the AO, then, he has a statutory right to file an appeal against the same before the First Appellate Authority/Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. And the Ld. CIT(A) has to pass the order on merit after hearing the assessee. In this case, the assessment order is dated 22.03.2016 and the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on 18.03.2023. It is further noted that the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 13.06.2016 and the same was later on migrated to the NFAC in 2020. And it is noted that the notices were issued after the migration on 23.12.2020, 24.02.2021 and 03.02.2022 (which were during the period of Covid-19 period). And thereafter only one notice was issued on 11.01.2023 and thereafter the impugned order has been passed on 18.03.2023. Thus, it is noted that except the notice issued on 11.01.2023, the other notices has been issued (after migrating to the NFAC) during the midst of Covid-19 pandemic period. Therefore, we find force in the ground no. 3 of the assessee that assessee didn’t set proper opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). And therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). And the assessee is directed to file its written submission and other documents in support of grounds of appeal within time and if advised to do so, and utilize the opportunity of hearing (through video conferencing) in accordance to law. And the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the grounds of appeal after giving proper opportunity to assessee.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →