M/S. GEMINI DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNT MEMBER & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEEM/s Gemini Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt Ltd, 16B, 1st Phase, Peenya Indl. Area, Peenya, Bangalore-560 058 PAN : AABCG0943J vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income- tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai Room NO.130, 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 APPELLANT
Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM) :
The instant appeal of the revenue was filed against the order of the National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter called, ‘Ld. CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year
2012-13, date of order 28/03/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax -7(1)(1), Mumbai passed under section 143(3), date of order 11/03/2015. 2
ITA 2969/Mum /2025
Gemini Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd .
The Ld.AR argued that the assessee is a company and filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring total income at Rs.1,94,65,740/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act assessing the income at Rs.2,55,32,947/-. The aggrieved assesse filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) passed an order exparte and upheld the impugned assessment order. Being aggrieved, the assesse filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld.DR fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 4. In our considered view, we find that the appellate order was passed ex parte, without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal without examining the merits of the case. During the course of the hearing, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Central, Nagpur v. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [(2016) 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bom)], wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “Section 250, read with section 251 of the Act — Commissioner (Appeals) — Procedure for Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Prosecution — Assessment Year 2006-07 — Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to apply his mind to all issues arising from the impugned order, irrespective of whether such issues were raised by the appellant — Held, Yes — Whether the law empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution — Held, No.” In light of the above legal position, we are of the view that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law.
3
ITA 2969/Mum /2025
Gemini Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd .
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as to not prejudice the appeal proceedings. It is also directed that the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the restored appellate proceedings. Conversely, the assessee is expected to act with due diligence and extend full cooperation to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the appeal.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.2969/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st day of July, 2025. (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 21/07/2025
Pavanan
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.