LATE MUKHTARAHMED JAISMOHD CHOWDHARY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SUHAIL AHMED MUKHTARAHMED CHOWDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 560/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 March 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 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 noted that the Ld. Commissioner issued an order on 05.12.2024, the same date as the notice issued to the assessee to file submissions by 13.12.2024. This was considered an inadvertent error.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,54,64,990/-. The assessee challenged this before the Ld. Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal. The assessee then appealed to the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. Commissioner erred by passing an order before the assessee's submission deadline, thereby denying a fair opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI BR BASKARAN & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Mr. M. S. Mathuria, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Ld. D.R
Hearing: 19.03.2025Pronounced: 25.03.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 05.12.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 25.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.2,54,64,990/-.

(Late) Shri Mukhtarahmed Jaismodh Chowdhary Legal Representative - Suhail Ahmed Mukhtarahmed Chowdhary 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine confirming the said addition and therefore the Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. Counsel of the Assessee, at the outset, has drawn our attention to the notice u/s 250 of the Act issued on dated 05.12.2024, whereby the Assessee was asked to furnish the written submission on or before 13.12.2024, whereas the Ld. Commissioner without waiting for the time given to the Assessee, for compliance and/or filing written submission on or before 13.12.2024, eventually passed the impugned order on 05.12.2024 itself i.e. prior date to the time given for filing written submissions.

5.

The Ld. D.R. did not refute the said factual aspect.

6.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. From the impugned order it appears that the Ld. Commissioner may be inadvertently or otherwise overlooking the notice dated 05.12.2024 whereby the Assessee was asked to furnish the written submissions on or before 13.12.202, passed the impugned order on dated 05.12.2024 itself and therefore, considering the mistake of the Ld. Commissioner as inadvertent and un-intentional, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and consequently to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly in the above terms. for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.03.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →