VIVEK R AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 17(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it on merits. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the assessee was ex-parte earlier.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre. There was a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether to restore the matter to CIT(A) for a fresh hearing when the assessee was ex-parte.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 06.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 29.05.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A), for the A.Y 2014- 15.
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 2 Vivek R Agarwal, Mumbai 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 outset we noticed that assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(A). Although the Ld. Ld.DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. But considering the fact that assessee was ex-parte and without going into the merits of allegations and counter allegations, in our view, the interest of justice would be met in case the issues / lis between the parties is decided on merits, after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Therefore, considering the above factual position, the bench feels that the ends of justice would be met, only, if the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide it afresh after providng opportunity of haring to the assessee. The assessee shall 3 Vivek R Agarwal, Mumbai 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 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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026