GENERAL GLASS COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that even if the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A), the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the substance of the case. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh on merits after providing a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide the specific grounds raised by the assessee regarding the ex-parte order, the demand, the capital gains computation, Article 265, or the Board Circular, as these were to be adjudicated by the CIT(A) upon remand.
What were the facts?
The assessee, General Glass Company Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issuing an intimation on September 24, 2018. This intimation raised a demand of Rs. 1,98,88,676/- based on capital gains computed at Rs. 7,53,07,062/-. The assessee challenged this intimation before the learned CIT(A). Despite receiving four notices from the CIT(A), the assessee failed to attend the appellate proceedings. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee has appealed this ex-parte order to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as per the facts and circumstances and in law? 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the demand of Rs. 1,98,88,680/- raised by the Learned CPC without considering the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Whether the Learned Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(A) erred in computing capital gain of Rs. 7,53,07,062/- on capital assets by treating the transaction as a transfer liable for capital gains tax, ignoring the facts and provisions of law? 4. Whether the Learned Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(A) erred in recovering tax without a provision of law and in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India? 5. Whether the AO and Learned CIT(A) erred in taking benefit of the appellant's ignorance, thereby violating Board Circular No. 14 (XL-35) dated April 11, 1955? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard. The assessee also contended that the demand raised by the CPC and confirmed by the CIT(A) was erroneous, and the computation of capital gains was incorrect. Furthermore, the assessee argued that tax cannot be recovered without a legal provision, citing Article 265 of the Constitution, and that the authorities took advantage of the assessee's ignorance, violating a Board Circular. The assessee relied on Article 265 of the Constitution of India and Board Circular No. 14 (XL-35) dated April 11, 1955. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HONBLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-1 [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)"], Mumbai dt. 25/02/2025, pertaining to AY 2017-18. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- "
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Rs.19888 Learned CPC in raising the demand of Rs.1,98,88,680/-, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(A) has erred in computing the capital gain of Rs.7,53,07,062/- on capital assets, by considering the transaction as transfer liable for capital gain tax, ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of law.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that no tax can be recovered without provision of law and article 265 of the Constitution of India.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the AO as well as Learned CIT(A) has erred in taking the benefit of ignorance of the appellant and accordingly the same is in violation of the board circular of 14 (XL-35) of 11th April 1955. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal."
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the return of income for the year under consideration was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 24/09/2018 by which the CPC computed tax payable at Rs.1,98,88,676/- on the income from capital gains amounting to Rs.7,53,07,062/-. The intimation was challenged before the ld. CIT(A). Though the ld. CIT(A) gave four notices but the appellate proceeding could not be attended and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine.
We are of the considered view that even if the assessee did not respond to the notices of the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh on merits of the case, after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 19th June, 2025 at Mumbai. (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 19/06/2025 *SC SPS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
