What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee did not fully participate, the CIT(A) did not issue notices to the assessee's postal address and did not decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, the case was remanded for fresh decision.

The assessee challenged an assessment order before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, stating the assessee failed to respond to notices. The assessee claimed they sought an adjournment which was not recorded.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper notice and without deciding on merits. Whether the appeal should be remanded for a fresh decision.

Tarapur Transformer Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Gopani

Hearing: 21.06.2023Pronounced: 23.06.2023

Appellant by : Sh. Dhananjay Shah, Adv./Ms. Mitali Gopani Respondent by : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023 O R D E R Per N. K. Choudhry, JM:

The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.03.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner)’} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

Tarapur Transformers Ltd. 2. In this case, the assessee challenged the assessment order dated 29.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer (AO) made certain additions, before the Ld. Commissioner.

The Ld. Commissioner, as it appears from para-4.1 of its order, sent various notices to the Assessee on ITBA, however, there was no response from the assessee, therefore, finding no option, the Ld. Commissioner by observing “that the assessee failed to avail any of the said opportunities provided, through various notices issued on ITBA to furnish a reply in support of its case. The aforesaid circumstances shows that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal,” decided the appeal of the assessee by dismissing as ex-parte.

The assessee by drawing our attention to page no. 1 of the PB, claimed that the assessee on dated 21.04.2022 sought adjournment upto 06.05.2022, however, the said fact does not find mentioned in the impugned order, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that though the Ld. Commissioner issued notices to the assessee on its ITBA four times, however, the assessee only seeking adjournment on 21.04.2022 neither joined the proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner nor filed any relevant documents except submissions dated 30.06.2017. However it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner did not issue any notice for the date of hearings to Tarapur Transformers Ltd. the Assessee at his postal address i.e. M/s Tarapur Transformers Ltd., 836/837, 8th Floor, Ijmima Complex, Raheja Metroplex, Link Road, Malad-(West), Mumbai 400064 given for sending the notices in Form-35. Whatsoever it may be, it is also a fact that the Ld. Commissioner did not pass the order on merit, which he was supposed to do, and therefore we for just decision of case and for the ends of substantial justice, inclined to remand the instant 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 ordered accordingly.

The assessee is also directed to appear as and when would be required and to file the relevant document(s) whichever would be needed by the Ld. Commissioner for proper decision of the case in hand.

TARAPUR TRANSFORMER LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-13(3)(1), 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