BIJAL MALAV SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1637/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 June 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)3 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.CIT(A) issued notices at short intervals and on the IT portal, and due to the holiday period and lack of time, the assessee could not respond. The Tribunal found that ex-parte orders were passed without going into the merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for AYs 2015-16 and 2017-18. The assessee contended that notices were issued at short intervals, on the IT portal, during a holiday period, and thus were not received or complied with.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) were justified when the assessee was prevented from responding to notices due to short intervals and holiday periods.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “B” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the respective orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 10-01-2025 & 17-01-2025, pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 & 2017-18.

2.

During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that both these appeals have been decided ex-parte by the Ld.CIT(A). In this regard, our reference was drawn to the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) wherein he has stated that three notices have been issued which have remain un-complied with. In this regard, it was submitted by the Ld.AR that these three notices have been issued at a very short interval and that too on the IT portal and given the holiday period and the paucity of time and the fact that the assessee did not receive those notices, the assessee was prevented from complying to the said notices. It was accordingly submitted 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.

3.

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).

4.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) issued all the notices at a very short interval and that too on the IT portal and given the holiday period and the paucity of time, the assessee couldn‟t respond to these notices. It is also a fact that in both these appeals, the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, without going to the merits of the case. In view of the above, we deemed 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(s) and restore both the appeals to the file(s) 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.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →