HEMANT JANARDHAN SUTAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BANDRA
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 observed that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A). Considering the submission of the assessee regarding non-service of notice and lack of legal knowledge, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged an order passed by the NFAC. The assessee claims they were ex-parte before the CIT(A) due to lack of proper notice and legal understanding. The Revenue, however, contended that sufficient opportunities were provided.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was properly served with notice and given a fair opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A)?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 17.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2017-18.
At the very outset, it is noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld.CIT(A). In this regard, it is submitted by Ld. AR that assessee had no information regarding the appeal as no notice was physically served upon the assessee. It was further submitted that due to lack of legal knowledge and procedural complexity, the assessee could not timely respond before the appellate authority. Whereas on the contrary, Ld DR submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee. In spite of that assessee failed to appear and cooperate before Ld.CIT(A).
After having heard both the parties and after perusal of material placed on record as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities and without going into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations, the bench is of the view that the ends of justice would be met only if the issues between the parties are decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing.
Be that as it may, keeping in view the above position in mind, I am inclined to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to prove his case before the revenue authorities. Therefore, the present appeal is restore back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2025.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
