GEM CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-27(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5896/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 August 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Accountant Member)1 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 noted that the assessee could not effectively represent their case before the CIT(A) and that additional evidence was sought. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order passed by the NFAC/CIT(A). The assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) due to circumstances preventing proper representation and sought to lead additional evidence, citing closure of business and bank accounts.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee, who was ex-parte before the CIT(A), should be granted another opportunity to represent their case and lead additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Vyas
For Respondent: Shri Swapnali Choudhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 31.07.2025Pronounced: 05.08.2025

ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 18.09.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14.

At the very outset, we noticed that assessee was ex- 2. parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench which prevented the assessee to represent properly before Ld. CIT(A).

3.

On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

4.

We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material on records and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that the assessee has also filed an application for seeking to lead additional evidence on the ground that the said evidence could not be provided before the lower authorities as the assessee had no business activities since F.Y: 2015-16 and had closed bank account and VAT / CST number with no access to the bank statements / copy of VAT forms at the time of reassessment or during the Ld. CIT(A) proceedings.

5.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee, we are of the view that since the assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Hence, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

6.

However the assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A) since we have restore the main appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication therefore assessee is given liberty to move appropriate application before Ld. CIT(A) for admission of

7.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05/08/2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →