MR GUDUSAB RAMJAN MUJAWAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6595/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 April 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for want of prosecution, especially when the assessee claimed to have not received notices due to an address change.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return for AY 2011-12. The AO reopened the assessment based on CIB/AIR data showing a cash deposit of Rs. 1,31,96,000/-. The assessee did not attend proceedings, leading to an ex-parte addition under Section 68. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits, and whether adequate opportunity of being heard was provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Vallabhadas D. Parmar, Advocate, A/R
Hearing: 08/04/2025Pronounced: 08/04/2025

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 14/08/2023 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the CIT(A)’], pertaining to AY 2011-12.

2.

The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal as the order passed by Ld CIT(A) is not in accordance with the mandate of section 250 of the IT Act as CIT(A) cannot dismiss appeal on the ground of non-prosecution of appeal by assessee. Reliance is placed on decision of CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bom). 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (A) erred in passing ex-parte without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to appellant. 4. Without prejudice to other grounds of appeal, (i)On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without considering merits of addition on account of cash deposits Rs 1,31,96,000/- in various bank

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →