NAYAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 7(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2322/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2025AY 2003-2004Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to present an effective representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals challenging orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for AY 2003-04 and 2010-11. The assessee claimed they were not provided a proper opportunity of hearing by the Ld. CIT(A), leading to a breach of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A), thus violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya a/w, Shri Kalpesh Tarunkar

For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Shankar Kadam, Sr. DR

Hearing: 03.09.2025Pronounced: 22.09.2025

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai मु�बई मु�बई

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →