SHAUKAT ALI VALI MOHAMMED KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 31(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “F” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPALAssessment Year : 2011-12
PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre
(NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 29-04-2025, pertaining to Assessment
Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the present appeal has been decided ex-parte by the Ld.CIT(A), without taking into consideration the various submissions filed on behalf of the assessee. In 2
this regard, our reference was drawn to the impugned order, wherein the Ld.CIT(A) stated that various notices have been issued which have remain un-complied with. In this regard, it was submitted by the Ld.AR that the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(„the Act‟), stating that "No response was received from the assessee", without taking into consideration the fact that the assessee submitted responses on five different occasions against the notices so issued and which have apparently not been considered. It was also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, without issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and, therefore, the reopening of assessment is without juri iction and bad in law and also submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that re-opening assessment u/s. 148 of the Act was without bringing out the failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts as required u/s. 147 of the Act and, therefore, the notice issued pursuant to the same is bad in law since the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act was only on the basis of verification of record already existing and submitted during the course of original assessment proceedings, without bringing out any fresh tangible material.
It was further submitted by the Ld.AR that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in confirming the disallowance Rs. 87,09,000/- made by the AO in respect of the Bad debts written-off in their accounts for AY. 2011-12
though the assessee has fulfilled all relevant conditions for claim of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. It was accordingly submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee be allowed necessary opportunity and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same afresh.
Per contra, the Ld. DR is heard, who has relied on the orders passed by the AO as well as by the Ld.CIT(A).
3
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the assessee did comply with the notices and filed written submissions which apparently have not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) and an ex-parte order has been passed. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent his case on merits before the Ld.CIT(A).
Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication afresh with a direction to the assessee to attend to the proceedings and furnish all the details/submissions as so advised.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03-07-2025 [MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL]
[VIKRAM SINGH YADAV]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai,
Dated: 03-07-2025
TNMM
4
Copy to :
1)
The Appellant
2)
The Respondent
3)
The CIT concerned
4)
The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai
5)
Guard file
By Order
Dy./Asst.