Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition made by the AO for non-deduction of TDS. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, subject to a deposit of Rs. 11,000/-.
Key Issues
Whether the first appellate authority rightly dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper consideration, and if remand is appropriate with conditions.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 40(a)(ia)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.08.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12.
In this case, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee despite of sending notices for the dates of the previous hearings as well as for today, thus, this Court is constrained to decide this appeal as ex-parte.
Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that in this case the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 21.12.2018 u/s
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording 8 opportunities, eventually made no reply and/or compliance and/or filed no submission/documents. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and dismissed the same in limine for non-prosecution.
Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved has preferred the instant appeal.
Heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the orders passed by the authorities below.
The Assessee, though by filing an affidavit, has claimed that no hearing notice or order was ever served by post, email or any other direct means to the Assessee or its authorized representative qua first appellate proceeding and impugned order, however, the Assessee came to know about the existence of the impugned order only on 12.06.2025, when in the routine manner the Assessee discovered about the impugned order. This Court observes that total 8 notices were issued by the Ld. Commissioner to the Assessee, however, if this Court excludes the notices issued on dated 16.03.2020 and 26.12.2020 which were issued during Covid- 19 period, but still it is clear that six notices were issued by the Ld. Commissioner, however, the Assessee made no compliance, which resulted into passing the impugned order as ex-parte and in limine and not in its right perspective and proper manner. Therefore, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice and considering the conduct of the Assessee, this Court is inclined to Ms. Safe and Sure Marine Services Private Limited remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh and/or on merit, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, however, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
This Court clarifies that the Assessee would be at liberty to seek recalling of this order, subject to establishing the reason for non-appearance before this Court, if desires so.
Thus, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with liberty as granted above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2025.