MANGESH SUDAM LAVALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO-23(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1161/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals against penalty orders were dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance. The assessee, now represented, provided an affidavit explaining the reasons for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex parte orders without considering the assessee's explanation for non-appearance, and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(b),Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILSHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, SR. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1161/Mum./2026 ITA No. 1162/Mum./2026 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Mangesh Sudam Lavale, 314/107 Mahavir Chawl, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 ……………. Appellant PAN : ADYPL4493M v/s

Income Tax Officer, Ward – 23(2)(1), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012 ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue by : Shri Vikas Chandra, SR. DR

Date of Hearing – 22/04/2026 Date of Order – 18/05/2026

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders dated 19/11/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the separate penalty orders passed under section 271(1)(b) and section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2019-20.

2 ITAs No.1161 & 1162/Mum/2026 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2019-20)

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the 2. material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the orders ex parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now, in the appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned AR and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. During the hearing, explaining the reasons for non-compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A), the learned AR placed on record the affidavit of the assessee.

3.

Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, the assessee be hereby granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned orders and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeals on merits, after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to furnish/update its Email address in the records before the learned CIT(A) so that the hearing notice(s) are sent to the operational email address. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. Accordingly, the

3 ITAs No.1161 & 1162/Mum/2026 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2019-20)

grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical 4. purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 18/05/2026 Prabhat

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →