STUTI MAHENDRA HINGORANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5513/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 October 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate on the assessee's application for admission of additional evidences. The Tribunal also noted issues with the notices sent to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The original assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld.CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on additional evidence application. Whether the notices were properly served.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “E” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 27-08-2024, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment application filed. Considering that the matter has been adjourned from time to time and notice has been duly served on the assessee and inspite of that, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee, it was decided that no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the matter any further and to decide the matter based on material available on record.

3.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessment in this case was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟), wherein the assessed income was determined at Rs. 3,71,32,960/-. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution.

4.

Heard the Ld.DR and perused the material available on record.

5.

We find that as part of the Form-35, the assessee has moved an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences and the application as well as the additional evidences were uploaded as part of appeal documentation. However, there is no adjudication in terms of the admission of additional evidences and even on merits of the case. In one of the grounds of appeal raised before us, the assessee has also challenged the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the reason that notices were sent on E-mail ID, which does not belong to the assessee. We, therefore, find that in the interest of justice, and fair play, the matter needs to be set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the assessee‟s application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A especially in light of the fact that the assessment order was also passed u/s. 144B of the Act as well as to decide on the merits of the matter afresh as per law, after providing

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →