MAMTA RAMESH SHUKLA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(2)(1), MUMBAI

At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard after going through the case file and considering the submissions of the assessee and hearing the parties and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of none deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. Therefore, keeping in view the above principles and the facts of the case we condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. Now the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.

At the very outset, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order as the assessee had not complied with any of the notices and has not submitted any details/documents/evidences in support of his grounds of appeal.

Whereas Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before the lower authorities and relied upon the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay for reasons of non appearance before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that because of ignorance

After having heard both the parties and after perusal of material placed on record as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities and without going into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations, the bench is of the view that the ends of justice would be met only if the issues between the parties are decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing.

Be that as it may, keeping in view the above position in mind, we are inclined to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to prove his case before the revenue authorities. Therefore, the present appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fish adjudication by providing opportunity of hearing the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on 4 Mamta Ramesh Shukla, Mumbai.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.03.2025. (BR BASKARAN) (SANDEEP GOSAIN)

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.