REENA ASHISH AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4040/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 October 2025AY 2022-236 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and had passed an ex-parte order in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and fair play, contrary to the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that none of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal were adjudicated. Considering the interest of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to set aside the appellate order and restore the entire matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for passing a fresh appellate order de novo. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to advance arguments and provide necessary details and evidence. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision did not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the CIT(A). A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-compliant behavior during proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Reena Ashish Ajmera, filed an appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessment order was passed ex-parte under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte after issuing multiple notices through the ITBA portal, to which the assessee did not respond. The CIT(A)'s order was challenged on grounds of being bad in law, illegal, cryptic, perverse, and in breach of natural justice, as it was passed without a proper opportunity of being heard and without application of mind. The assessee also challenged the confirmation of disallowance of salary and interest expenses.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is bad, illegal, and without jurisdiction, specifically in breach of statutory provisions, the scheme of the Act, and principles of natural justice, by being cryptic, perverse, and passed ex-parte without granting a proper opportunity of being heard (Section 250(6) of the Act)? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of salary expense of Rs. 7,22,025/- and interest expense of Rs. 7,68,379/-, by basing his action on erroneous facts, surmises, suspicion, conjecture, and irrelevant considerations? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A)'s order was bad in law and illegal due to procedural irregularities and breach of natural justice. The assessee contended that no fair opportunity of being heard was provided and the order was passed without application of mind. The assessee also argued that the disallowances of salary and interest expenses were erroneous and based on incorrect facts and conjecture. The assessee requested a remand of the issue to the lower authorities for proper compliance. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue objected to the remand request, citing the assessee's non-compliant attitude during the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR
For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, Sr. AR
Hearing: 21.08.2025Pronounced: 06.10.2025

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A) 48, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 20.03.2024 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2022-23. Page 2 Reena Ashish Ajmera

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:

1.

THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION

1.

1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai ["Ld. CIT (A)"] be held as bad and illegal, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise is not is not in accordance with the law.

1.

2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the appellate order so passed is bad, illegal and void as the same is utterly cryptic and perverse.

2.

NATURAL JUSTICE

2.

1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by passing an ex-parte order contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"].

2.

2 While passing the said order the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: (i) The said order is passed without granting a fair, proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant; and; (ii) The same is passed without any application of mind and in breach of the principles of natural justice.

2.

3 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed be quashed and set aside. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE

3.

1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of made by the A.O. of salary expense Rs.7,22,025/- and Interest expense of Rs.7,68,379/-.

3.

2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in: (i) Basing his action on wrong/ erroneous facts. (ii)Basing his action only on surmises, suspicion and conjecture; (iii)Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations;

3.

3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such addition was called for.

3.

4 Without prejudice to the above, assuming but not admitting that some addition was called for, it is submitted that the computation of the addition made by the A.O. is arbitrary, excessive and not in accordance with the law. Page 3 Reena Ashish Ajmera

2.

In this case, assessment order was passed ex parte u/s 144 of the Act on account of non compliance by the assessee by disallowing certain expenses and adding to the returned income which were agitated before the first appellate authority. In the subsequent appeal, as noted by the ld.CIT(A), a number of notices/ communications through ITBA portal were sent to the appellant, viz. communications dated 21.12.2024, 24.01.2025, 10.02.2025, 21.02.2025 and 13.03.2025. But the assessee did not attend the appeal proceedings without citing any reasons. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in limine and in ex-parte manner on the basis documents/details available on record.

3.

We find that the appellate order has been passed in ex parte manner on account of non compliance by the assessee as none of the issues involved could be considered as the grounds of appeal have been not been adjudicated. Consequently, the ld.CIT(A) has failed to evaluate the points of consideration so as to give his own decision on objective

analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and fair play. He has not decided the appeal on merits which is contrary to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Page 4 Reena Ashish Ajmera

3.

1 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR requested for remanding back the entire issue to the lower authorities with the promise that necessary compliance would be made by the assessee. The ld.DR however, objected to such proposition on account of non- compliant attitude of the assessee.

4.

Considering the entirety of the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of principles of natural justice and fair play, we consider it appropriate to send the appeal back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) in the light of above discussion granting final opportunity to the assessee to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. CIT(A) so as to provide details in connection with the merits of the case and additional evidences, if any to support his contentions. Both the sides did not object to this proposition. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order and restore the entire matter back to the ld.CIT(A) for passing the appellate order de novo after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

1 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by him independently and in accordance with law.

5.

Considering the non-compliant behaviour of the assessee during the proceedings, we deem it to proper to impose a cost of Rs 2,000/-on her with a direction to deposit the same in Prime Minister's Relief Fund within 15 days of this order and produce the acknowledgement thereof to the AO.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2025. PAWAN SINGH (न्यायिक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER) PRABHASH SHANKAR (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai दिनांक / Date 06.10.2025 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →