What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but considered the age and peculiar circumstances, including the delay in processing the appeal. While the assessee deserved no leniency, the case was remanded for a fresh decision to the AO.

The assessee, being a senior citizen, failed to appear before the Ld. Commissioner and the Assessing Officer due to ailments and alleged miscommunication. The appeal was filed in 2021 and taken up in 2024, leading to an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether non-compliance by a senior citizen assessee due to age and alleged miscommunication warrants a remand for a fresh decision, subject to conditions.

Meghji Ratanshi Vira, Thane vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. Dalal, Ld. A.R

For Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR

Hearing: 18.09.2025Pronounced: 18.09.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 04.06.2025, 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. 2017-18.

Considering the impugned order is an ex-parte, the adjournment application filed by the Assessee is rejected.

Admittedly, the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner neither made any compliance nor filed any adjournment application and/or submissions/document, therefore the Ld. Commissioner upheld the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) by mentioning as under: “I am constraint to uphold the order of the AO in absence of any supporting evidence, document presented by the appellant”.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has claimed that the Assessee being 70 years of age, suffering from various ailments and there was miscommunication qua notice issued by the Ld. commissioner, which resulted into non-compliance before the Ld. Commissioner and therefore leniency may be observed and an opportunity may be provided to the Assessee.

On the contrary, the Ld. DR. refuted the claim of the Assessee and submitted that before the AO as well, the Assessee remained non-compliant which reflects the attitude of the Assessee.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and orders passed by the authorities below, the contention of the Ld. DR. appears to be correct and plausible and therefore the Assessee deserves no leniency, however, considering the peculiar facts again that the Assessee is a senior citizen and even otherwise this appeal before Ld. Commissioner was filed 04.05.2021, which remained pending for 4 years and only taken into consideration in the month of September 2024 and therefore reasonable cause for non- appearance cannot be ruled out. Thus, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand back the instant case to the file of the AO as an exception case, as the Assessee before the AO also remained non-compliant due to old age, however, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department, under “other heads” within 15 days from this order.

The Assessee is directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the AO and file the relevant submissions/documents as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the AO for decision afresh accordingly.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2025.

MEGHJI RATANSHI VIRA,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments