SURYA PRATAP SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(4), THANE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, it was held that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard and decided the appeal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order by the NFAC, Delhi, for AY 2022-23. The assessee alleged that their submissions were not considered and that they were not given adequate opportunity or time for hearings and assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and granting adequate opportunities for hearing and assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 08/08/2024 by the NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’], pertaining to AY 2022-23.
The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without considering the submissions filed by the Appellant on the e-filing portal. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that no adjournment has been filed to the notices whereas the appellant has filed an adjournment to all the notices issued. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in recognizing the fact that insufficient time was given to the assessee at the time of assessment by the learned Assessing officer before finalizing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.
2 4. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 73,84,072/- as estimated taxable income on ad-hoc basis and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and the provision of the law. 5. The appellant craves leaves to add, alter, amend, modify, or withdraw ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
