What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and directions were already given by the CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The assessee filed an appeal challenging an ex-parte order passed by the NFAC. The assessee argued that no notice was issued for fresh assessment proceedings after the CIT(A) set aside the matter.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable when the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and the CIT(A) had already provided directions for a fresh opportunity.

K. Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd vs I.T.O. | ITAT Mumbai 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Lodha

For Respondent: Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. DR

Hearing: 01.05.2025

ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 06.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2013-14.

At the very outset, it is noticed that ex-parte order of assessment was passed by the AO. However Ld CIT(A), considering the said fact set aside the matter to the concerned AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh after allowing a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assesses.

2 K. Raj Construction Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In my considered view, the present appeal is not maintainable , keeping in view that assessee was ex-parte before the AO during the assessment proceedings and necessary directions have already been given by Ld CIT(A).

The assessee who is present in person in the court has submitted that so far no notice has been issue by the AO for calling the assessee to participate in the fresh assessment proceedings, even in spite of expiry of three months from the date of order by Ld. CIT(A). Hence considering the overall facts of the present case, while dismissing the present appeal as infractuous, I direct the AO to expedite and to adjudicate the matter in a reasonable time. Hence , the present appeal is disposed off in terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.05.2025. (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 01/05/2025 KRK, PS 3 K. Raj Construction Pvt Ltd., Mumbai आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत ////

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst.

K. RAJ CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O., MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments