DARASHAW KEKI MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2806/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 June 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)2 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 Id. CIT(A) order was not in consonance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and restored the matter to the Id. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Id. CIT(A) without discussing the merits of the case, despite the assessee furnishing a statement of facts. The non-compliance was attributed to a Chartered Accountant inadvertently missing deadlines.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without adjudicating the merits of the appeal is sustainable, and if not, what is the appropriate course of action.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(1),Section 250,Section 35

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the ex-parte order of ld. CIT(A) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFACT) dated 15.04.2025 for A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused.

The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without discussing merits of the case. The assessee at the time of filing appeal furnished complete statement of facts, necessary for adjudication of the appeal. However, such fact is not considered by ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee was confronted with the fact about non-compliance by five show cause notices under section 250 of Income Tax Act, issued by ld. CIT(A), the ld. AR of the assessee would submit that assessee engaged Sara & Associates, Chartered Accountant to represent the assessee before ld. CIT(A). The CA of the assessee inadvertently missed out necessary compliance. The CA of the assessee has given in writing about such non-compliance which was unintentional. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee may be given one more opportunity to contest the case on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss appeal on non- prosecution, rather he has to adjudicate the appeal on merit as per sub- section 6 of section 250 of the Income Tax Act. To support his submission, the ld. AR filed letter dated 23.06.2025 written by Rajesh Agarwal, Chartered Accountant from Sara & Associates Chartered Accountant. The ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of Tribunal in Ms. Swati Pawa Vs DCIT (2019) 103 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi-Trib) and in CIT Vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2016) 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bom).

3.

On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that more than sufficient opportunity was allowed by ld. CIT(A) has recorded in para 3.1 of order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) five opportunities to the assessee for making compliance. Mere filing statement of fact are not sufficient, if they are not supported with relevant evidence. The assessee does not deserve any leniency for further opportunity.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that appeal of assessee was dismissed in ex-parte order without discussing merits of the case. No doubt that order of ld. CIT(A) is not inconsonance with the mandate of section 250(6) of Income Tax Act, still, we find that assessee was negligent in making timely compliance. The assessee has given his own email on Form 35 before ld. CIT(A) and now taking shelter of letter issued by his Chartered Accountant. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and negligence of assessee, the assessee is burden with the cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited in Bombay High Court legal aid and advice Committee / Board. Further, considering the fact that order of ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte without adjudicating various issue on merit, therefore, matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order of ld. CIT(A) shall allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is further direct to more vigilant and not to take adjournment without any valid reason.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/06/2025.

More judgments on Section 35

All 169 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →