RAJESH ANOPCHAND MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
‘SMC’ BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
(Physical hearing)
Rajesh Anopchand Mehta
Room No. 26, Iqbal Bldg.,
Gokhale Road, Dadar (West),
Mumbai-400028. PAN: AHSPM-2662-N
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer
Ward 22(3)(6),
Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug,
Parel,
Mumbai-400012. (Appellant)
..
(Respondent)

Assessee by Mr. M. S. Mathuria, CA
Revenue by Shri. Vijay Kr. G. Subramanyam, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
24/04/2025
Date of Pronouncement
24/04/2025

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICAIL MEMBER, 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Ld. CIT(A)) dated 10.01.2025 for A.Y. 201-18. 2. The rival submission of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer (AO) as well as Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. No fair and proper opportunity was allowed to the assessee. During assessment the AO issued show cause notice dated 07.05.2023 for making the compliance by 14.05.2023. In response to show cause notice, the assessee filed application for seeking adjournment, upto 29.05.2023. The AO instead of allowing time, completed assessment on 24.05.2023. the copy of screen shot of ITBA portal is filed showing the filing of adjournment application by the assessee. The Rajesh Anopchand Mehta 2

assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). In Form No. 35 the assessee has mentioned e-mail address of mehtarajesha@gmail.com and his telephone no.
9821322191. However, neither message alert was received on such mobile number nor any notice were served through e-mail provided on Form No. 35. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has filed copy of e-mail history of the e-mail provided on form 35. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is allowed to the assessee to contest the case of merit. The matter may be restored back to the file of AO for CIT(A) with the liberty to assessee to make his submission.
3. On the other hand, the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authority. The Ld. DR for the revenue submits that as per the orders of lower authorities’ sufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee. The assessee failed to avail such opportunity. Thus, the assessee deserves no further leniency for providing second inning.
4. I have considered the rival submission of both the parties and perused the record carefully. I filed that AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order by taking view that no submissions was filed by the assessee. Before me, the Ld.
AR of the assessee vehemently urged that no notice from CIT(A) were received on the e-mail provided on Form No. 35. Even before the AO the assessee filed application for adjournment on the show cause notice dated 07.05.2023. I find that assessee has filed copy of ITBA portal showing the acknowledgment of adjournment application whereas adjournment upto 29.05.2023 was short. I find that AO passed assessment order on 24.05.2023. No doubt that other show
Rajesh Anopchand Mehta
3

cause notice issued by AO were also responded as recorded in para 2 of assessment order. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by taking view the three opportunity was given to assessee and that assessee has not responded. Considering the fact that both the lower authorities passed order in my view no fair and proper opportunity was given to the assessee, therefore, keeping in view the principle of natural justice the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh, CIT(A) shall allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in making timely compliance of the notice issued by CIT(A). In the result, grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 24.04.2025. (PAWAN SINGH)

JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 24/04/2025
Anandi Nambi, Steno

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

BY ORDER,

(Asstt.