SAMIDHA PURUSHOTTAM POTPHODE,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3781/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 August 2025AY 2015-16Bench: 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 held that the Ld. PCIT passed the impugned order in a hurried manner without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Ld. PCIT for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order passed by the Ld. PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. PCIT issued a notice on March 28, 2025, for a hearing on March 31, 2025, despite the assessee's adjournment application and a long weekend with bank holidays.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. PCIT provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

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 Parag Potphode
For Respondent: Shri Swapnali Choudhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 31.07.2025Pronounced: 05.08.2025

Date of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 31.03.2025 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Ld. PCIT for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

First of all we are taking up Ground No. 2 to 3 which are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. PCIT in not providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee while passing the impugned order.

Samidha Purushottam Potphode, Mumbai. 3. In this regard, we have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

4.

From the records, we noticed that before passing the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act, Ld. PCIT had issued notice dated 28.03.2025 calling upon the assessee to file its reply along with supporting documents and had fixed the matter on 31.03.2025 at 12 pm. In this regard assessee had moved an application for seeking adjournment which is at paper book page No. 78 & 79. However, Ld. PCIT while ignoring the said application for seeking adjournment had passed the ex-parte order on 31.03.2025, thereby depriving the opportunity of proper hearing to the assessee.

5.

We also noticed that the show cause notice was signed by the Ld. PCIT on 28.03.2025 i.e Friday at 04.40 pm and was sent through mail. It is important to mention here that as per calendar of March 2025, the days in between dates i.e 29, 30 & 31 March 2025 were bank holidays and it was a long weekend, 30.03.2025 was also bank holiday on account of “Ramzan Eid”. Thus in our view the time granted to the assessee was not sufficient for filing reply along with documentary evidences. The purpose of providing ‘reasonable opportunity of hearing’ is not a ‘mere formality’ and it has to be followed in letter and spirit by the quasi judicial authorities. Therefore in our view, Ld. PCIT has passed the impugned order in a hurriedly manner without providing ‘reasonable opportunity’ of hearing to the assessee.

Samidha Purushottam Potphode, Mumbai. 6. Be that as it may, keeping in view the above position in our mind, we are inclined to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. PCIT for fresh adjudication after considering the reply / documents filed by the assessee and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties.

7.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. PCIT 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. PCIT 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

C

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →