NOLASH JOSEPH JULIO FELIX NORONHA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 25(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6075/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 November 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The assessee was directed to update its email address for future hearing notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The original appeal was dismissed ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's order without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing, and in not allowing tax relief under Section 90/90A despite Form 67 being filed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 90,Section 90A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANTSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain
For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing – 25/11/2025 Date of Order - 27/11/2025

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 01/07/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurugram, [“learned Addl./Joint CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “

The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one other: -

1. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Id.AO in passing order under section 250 of the Act without affording effective opportunity of being heard.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Id.AO in not allowing the tax relief u/s 90/90A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that appellant had duly filed Form 67.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Id.AO in not allowing the tax relief u/s 90/90A of the Act, amounting to Rs.1,78,158/-.”

3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now, in the appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned AR and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, the assessee be hereby granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits, after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to furnish/update his Email address in the records before the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) so that the hearing notice(s) are sent to the operational email address. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default.

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/11/2025

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →