Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was preferred against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. The assessee claimed that notices were not served due to a wrong address, and thus no opportunity was granted.
Held
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee, especially when notices were allegedly served on a wrong address?
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
Assessee by : Shri Sanjeev Bramhe, A/R Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 26/03/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2013-14.
The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. The CIT Appeal has erred in not granting opportunity. He has failed to give any opportunity as well as final show cause notice. 2. The CIT Appeal has erred in ignoring earlier submissions. 3. The CIT Appeal has issued only one notice of hearing for 12.03.2025 after gap of exactly after 3 years.
The CIT Appeal has erred in not considering the request of the Appellant for adjournment.
The CIT Appeal has erred in ignoring all the details and documents submitted physically before CIT Appeal in 2019 & 2022.
The CIT Appeal has erred in confirming the Addition of Unsecured Loans of Rs. 4,24,65,394/- despites of all the evidences on records.”