Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed by the assessee against orders of the NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal despite notices, and the appeals were decided ex-parte after hearing the D/R.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, even if there was no period of limitation for the CIT(A). The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before dismissing the appeals for want of documentary evidence.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: & 3132/Mum/2025 are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders dt. 04/03/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2013-14 and 2014-15.
Since common grievance is involved in both the appeals, they were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of notices. We decided to proceed ex-parte. The ld. D/R was heard at length. Case records carefully perused.