JAVERILAL POPATLAL DEDHIA (PROP. DEDHIA JEWELLERS),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 8(2), MUMBAI

ITSSA 6466/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 December 2025AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that, considering the circumstances and the assessee's submission regarding the lack of adequate opportunity of hearing, it was appropriate to grant the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A). The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh. The Tribunal clarified that this decision was not a reflection on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to be cooperative and not seek frivolous adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Javerilal Popatlal Dedhia, filed an appeal against an order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee's authorized representative (AR) submitted that an adequate opportunity of hearing was not granted, and an adjournment application dated 28.08.2025 was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). The ITAT noted this procedural issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity of hearing by the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they were not granted adequate opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). They specifically pointed out that their adjournment application dated 28.08.2025 was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A), leading to them being ex-parte. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik , Sr. DR

Hearing: 03.12.2025Pronounced: 04.12.2025

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 →