MOHAMMED SHAHNAWAZ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(2)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2635/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 June 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a de novo decision, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- in the Revenue Department within 15 days. The Ld. Commissioner is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee must file all necessary documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the Ld. Commissioner was dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-compliance with six notices. The Ld. Commissioner did not decide the appeal on merits, and there was a three-year gap between notices issued in 2021 and 2024.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. Commissioner correctly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without a decision on merits, considering the assessee's non-compliance and the significant gap in notice issuance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punamiya, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Mr. P D Chougule, Ld. Sr. D.R
Hearing: 04.06.2025Pronounced: 04.06.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24.02.2025, 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. 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, it is observed that there is non compliance of six notices by the Assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner was constrained to decide the appeal filed by the Assessee dismissing the same for non-prosecution. Admittedly, the Ld. Commissioner failed to decide the appeal on merit, in the absence of specific reply/document which the Assessee failed to file and therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, as there was a gap of three years in the notices issued initially in 2021 and thereafter in 2024. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner, however, subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from today and produce the receipt before the Ld. Commissioner. Suffice to say, the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

3.

The Assessee is also directed to file relevant documents/submissions, which would be essentially required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper decision of the case. In case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.06.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →