TEJAS MUKESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2328/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 April 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without affording an adequate opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against an assessment order. The CIT(A) issued a notice of hearing, and the assessee requested an adjournment. However, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without granting the adjournment or providing an effective opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE BEENA PILLAI & HON’BLE ARUN KHODPIA

For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale-Sr. DR
Pronounced: 30/04/2026

आदेश / ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 31/12/2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Though the assessee has raised as many as seven grounds of appeal, the sole grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) has

ITA 2328/MUM/2026 TEJAS MUKESH SHAH

passed the impugned order ex-parte without granting reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2.1. Briefly stated, the assessment in the present case was framed by the Ld.AO on 29/01/2025. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). It is observed from the record that notice of hearing was issued by the Ld.CIT(A) on 16/12/2025. In response thereto, the assessee vide letter dated 22/12/2025 sought adjournment of the hearing till 02/01/2026. However, the Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to pass the impugned order on 31/12/2025 without granting the adjournment sought and without providing effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before this Tribunal. 3. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The adjournment sought by the assessee was prior to the date of passing of the order, and there is nothing on record to suggest that the same was disposed of or rejected by the Ld.CIT(A) before proceeding to decide the appeal. In our considered view, this is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

ITA 2328/MUM/2026 TEJAS MUKESH SHAH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai Dated: 30/04/2026 SC. Sr. P.S

Copy to:

TEJAS MUKESH SHAH, A-103, CHANDRAKANT RESIDENCY 150 FEET ROAD, BHAYANDER WEST, 1 THANE-401101, MAHARASHTRA DCIT, CIRCLE 1, 2 QURESHI MANSION GOPAL KRISHNA GOKHALE MARG,, MUMBAI-400602, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →