MIHIR SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CC) - 2(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2191/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 September 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the case should be remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on the point of limitation, considering the Assessee's reasons and any affidavit filed. If the delay is condoned, the Commissioner should decide the case on merit.

What were the facts?

The Assessee appealed against an order that dismissed their appeal for want of limitation. The Assessee claimed they had not received the original intimation order, but did not file a specific affidavit. The lower authority decided the appeal in limine without addressing the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for want of limitation without considering the Assessee's explanation for the delay and deciding the case on merit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 249

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Mr. Jigar Mehta, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Mr. Tamil Selvam, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.09.2025Pronounced: 16.09.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.01.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

The Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee filed against the intimation order dated 28.04.2014 u/s 143(1) of the Act, in limine for want of limitation. It also appears from the impugned order that the Assessee except simply making allegation and/or submission that it has not received the aforesaid intimation, filed no specific affidavit. Even otherwise, the Ld. Commissioner also not decided the reasons stated by the Assessee in its right perspective and proper manner but simply by quoting the provisions of section 249 of the Act and passing general remarks and citing various judgments, decided the appeal of the Assessee in limine.

Thus, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case, as both the parties have also voluntarily agreed to, to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, on the point of limitation by considering the reasons stated by the Assessee and the affidavit to be filed before the Ld. Commissioner and if need arises by seeking remand report or status report from the Assessing Officer (AO) qua service of the intimation/order, which was challenged by the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

3.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh in the aforesaid directions on the point of limitation and further with a direction that in case he condones the delay, then he will decide the case on merit.

4.

The Assessee is also directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings to be carried out by the Ld. Commissioner. This Court clarifies that in case of subsequent default; the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.09.2025.

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →