Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2016-17. The assessee remained ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A), and also failed to appear before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR was present.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear despite repeated summons and notices, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. However, to ensure justice, the matter was restored to the file of the AO with a nominal cost of Rs. 2000/- imposed on the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be decided ex-parte or restored to the AO to provide a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee, considering the assessee's non-appearance.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Shri Sandeep Gosain(JM) & Shri Prabhash Shankar(AM) Smt. Anupriya Anil Panchal
O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain (JM) :- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 dated 07.04.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called repeatedly. On going through the file and reports submitted by the Bench Clerk, we noticed that summons/notices were issued to the assessee through RPAD and also through e-mail on the address submitted by the assessee. But still, none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called and even no application or request for seeking adjournment has filed, which shows that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. On the other hand, Ld. DR is present and ready with his arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the case ex-parte.
On going through the records and hearing Ld. DR, we noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. AO and even before Ld. CIT(A). No effective representation was made therefore Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the request of the assessee for leading additional evidence on the ground that no supporting proper application has been filed by the assessee. But in the 2 Smt. Anupriya Anil Panchal order of Ld. CIT(A) there is no mentioned with regard to providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Since the assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. AO and after going into the merits of the claim raised by the assessee, the Bench is of the view that lis between the parties is to be decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Therefore considering the above factual and legal position in mind, the Bench is of the view that interest of justice would be met only if the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. AO. Since the assessee was negligent in putting appearing before us also before the Revenue Authorities, therefore a nominal cost of Rs. 2000/- is imposed upon the assessee which is to be deposited in the “Prime Minister Relief Fund” with the direction to place on record copy of receipt before the Ld. AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. With these directions, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. AO to decide the matter afresh on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to Ld. AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by Ld. AO independently in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.