MAIRU IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 5(2)(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that both the assessment and appellate orders were vitiated due to lack of opportunity and violation of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte reassessment order. Notices for hearing were sent to an incorrect email address, and the assessee was unaware of the proceedings on the ITBA portal, thus being deprived of a fair opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment and appellate orders are valid when the assessee was denied a fair opportunity of hearing due to incorrect notice delivery.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the NFAC, for A.Y. 2013–14, arising out of the reassessment framed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act.
P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2013-14 MairuImpex Pvt Ltd 2. It was brought to our notice that the impugned appellate order has been passed ex-parte. The notices of hearing were admittedly sent to an incorrect e-mail address, and the assessee was unaware of any intimation on the ITBA portal. Thus, the assessee was deprived of a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The grounds of appeal
further reveal that the assessee has challenged both the validity of the proceedings under section 148 and, on merits, the addition of ₹1,33,50,000/– on account of alleged non-genuine transactions. The assessment itself had also been concluded ex-parte, with only partial replies available on record. Hence, both the assessment as well as the appellate orders stand vitiated for want of due opportunity, contrary to the settled principles of natural justice.
4. In the larger interest of justice, we therefore set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. He shall re-examine the validity of the reassessment as well as the additions on merits, after affording adequate and effective opportunity of hearing. The assessee, in turn, shall cooperate fully and ensure due compliance with the notices issued.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
