ADESHWAR MEDITEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI (CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI), AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1032/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 March 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1032/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 ADESHWAR MEDITEX LIMITED Unit No. 111, Lok Center Marol Maroshi Road Andheri East Maharashtra - 400059 [PAN: AAGCA2560A] Vs DCIT – Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Abhhay Agrawal (virtually appeared) Revenue by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25/01 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. It was held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits and therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, which had confirmed an addition of Rs. 42,08,898/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel raised an additional plea that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, or if the appeal should be decided on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Abhhay Agrawal (virtually appeared)
Hearing: 25/03/2025Pronounced: 25/03/2025

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 28/01/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”], pertaining to AY 2018-19.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 42,08,898/-, made u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional plea that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. 4. We have carefully perused the order of the ld. CIT(A). We find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine holding that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal.

I.T.A. No. 6706/Mum/2024 2

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →