DEZIRE EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3154/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2025AY 2021-224 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the approach of the Learned CIT(A) in summarily affirming the assessment order without dealing with the grounds raised on merits could not be sustained. The Tribunal emphasized that the first appellate authority is obliged to dispose of an appeal by way of a reasoned and speaking order and must ensure that the principles of natural justice are duly observed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the entire matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to grant a due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and render findings on each ground raised. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the disallowances, leaving them open for the Ld. CIT(A) to decide. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dezire Exports, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, challenging an order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai. This order arose from an assessment framed under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2021-22. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte without adjudication on merits. The assessee contended that while the first two notices from the CIT(A) were not received, the last two were received with very limited time for compliance, preventing an effective presentation of its case. The CIT(A) had confirmed disallowances of sales amounting to ₹9,58,385 (0.5% of turnover) and loans and advances of ₹38,60,684 (3% of total figure).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the Learned CIT(A) ex parte, without adjudication on merits, violates the principles of natural justice and denies a proper opportunity of being heard (mixed question of law and fact)? 2. Whether the disallowances of sales of ₹9,58,385 and loans and advances of ₹38,60,684 were correctly confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) (question of law)? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the ex parte dismissal by the CIT(A) amounted to a denial of a proper opportunity of being heard. The limited time afforded for compliance with the last two notices prevented the assessee from effectively presenting its case. Revenue's Contentions: The learned Departmental Representative, with fairness, did not object to the matter being restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & MS. PADMAVATHI S

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–53, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”], arising from the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2021–22. 2. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged two aspects of the impugned order. The first grievance is that Dezire Exports the appeal has been dismissed ex parte by the Ld. CIT(A) without adjudication on merits. The second pertains to the confirmation of disallowances, namely: (i) disallowance of sales of ₹9,58,385/–, being 0.5% of the turnover; and (ii) disallowance of loans and advances of ₹38,60,684/–, computed at 3% of the total figure.

1. 3. The record reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued four notices, the chronology of which finds mention at page 2 of the impugned order. It has been explained that while the first two notices were not received by the assessee, the last two notices were admittedly received but afforded very limited time for compliance. As a result, the assessee could not effectively present its case. Nevertheless, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment in a summary manner without dealing with the merits of the matter.

4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that such disposal amounts to denial of proper opportunity of being heard. The learned Departmental Representative, with fairness, did not object to the matter being restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

5. Having considered the submissions and upon perusal of the material placed on record, we are of the view that the approach of the Ld. CIT(A) in summarily affirming the assessment order, without dealing with the grounds raised on merits, cannot be sustained. The first appellate authority is Dezire Exports obliged to dispose of an appeal by way of a reasoned and speaking order, and in doing so, must ensure that the principles of natural justice are duly observed.

6. In these circumstances, and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the entire matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall re-adjudicate the appeal afresh, in accordance with law, after granting due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and shall render findings on each ground raised before him.

7. We make it clear that no opinion has been expressed by us on the merits of the disallowances, which are left open for the Ld. CIT(A) to decide. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings to enable expeditious disposal.

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

Order pronounced on 29th September, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →