AJAY PAHARIA HUF,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 41(3)(1),MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the assessee's plea for a chance to substantiate its claim, decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an order passed by the NFAC/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee had failed to comply with notices and attend hearings, allegedly due to miscommunication with counsel, and sought an opportunity to present its case.
What were the issues?
Whether to remand the case to the AO for a fresh decision, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, given the ex-parte nature of the assessment and appellate orders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 23.01.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2012-13.
It appears from the impugned order that five notices were issued to the assessee, however, the Assessee except seeking adjournment on dated 06.12.2023, eventually, made no compliance on 4 dates of hearings. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner though decided the issue involved on the basis of material available on record, but not in its right perspective and proper manner. The Assessee has claimed that due to M/s. Ajay Paharia HUF miscommunication with the previous counsel, he remained unrepresented before the Ld. Commissioner during the first appellate proceedings, therefore, in the interest of justice one opportunity may be given to the Assessee to substantiate its claim. Hence, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner.
At this stage, Ld. counsel Mr. Dharan Gandhi has submitted that there are some variations and mis-matches in the assessment order itself. Therefore, it would be appropriate, if the case is remanded to the file of the AO.
This Court observe that the assessment order is also more or less ex-parte and therefore it would be appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the assessing officer, however, subject to deposit of Rs.1100/- in the Revenue Department under “other head” within 15 days from the date of this order.
Thus the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the AO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.06.2025.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- 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
