Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged orders passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte, with the assessee claiming they requested an adjournment due to short notice, while the Revenue contended non-compliance and non-cooperation.
Held
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to effectively represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, it allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision, granting the assessee another opportunity, conditional on their cooperation.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals ex-parte and if the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 10.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2015-16 & 2016-17.
Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for M/s. Sunlight Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai the sake of convenience and brevity. I shall take A.Y 2016-17 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
ITA No. 2956/Mum/2025, A.Y 2016-17
At the very outset, I noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench that the assessee had been pursuing the matter before Ld. CIT(A) deligently and was present on every date of hearing, however, the notice of hearing dated 03.03.2025 was received wherein the date of compliance was mentioned on 10.03.2025 and since the time was very short therefore assessee applied for seeking adjournment but the Ld. CIT(A) while ignoring the said application for seeking adjournment had dismissed the appeal by proceeding the assessee ex-parte.
Whereas on the contrary, Ld. DR while relying upon the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee had not complied with a specific direction of Ld. CIT(A) and remained non-cooperative.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity M/s. Sunlight Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I 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.
Before parting, I 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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to A.Y 2015-16 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for these appeals also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeals also stands allowed for statistical purposes. M/s. Sunlight Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.