SUPREME TRADERS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 833/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 April 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that this decision should not be construed as a reflection on the merits of the dispute.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal challenging an order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and an adjournment application was dismissed. The assessee's managing partner had expired, and other partners were unaware of tax matters.

What were the issues?

Whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the circumstances of the assessee's non-appearance and the grounds raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Hearing: 24.03.2025Pronounced: 04.04.2025

Date of Hearing 24.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order 30.12.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, for the A.Y: 2013-14. 2 Supreme Traders, Mumbai

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called, however we found that an application has been filed by the assessee for seeking adjournment but after going through the case file we noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A), therefore considering the said fact and also none appeared on behalf of the assessee we dismiss the application for seeking adjournment. On the contrary Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex parte.

3.

Since the assessee was ex-parte and could not place on record the necessary information / documents / material and it has been mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the managing partner of the assessee had expired and the other partners were not aware of the tax matters and did not have required data for submitting the same before the appellate authority.

4. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the appeal, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met In case the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision on merits after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

3 Supreme Traders, Mumbai

4.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the 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 the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →