REAY ROAD IRON AND METAL WAREHOUSING PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2210/MUM/2022Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 October 2022AY 2015-20163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had ignored the assessee's adjournment request and proceeded ex-parte, which was a gross violation of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) on the grounds of violation of natural justice. The assessee had sought an adjournment electronically, but the CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment request.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali
For Respondent: Shri Pratap Narayan Sharma
Hearing: 26/10/2022Pronounced: 26/10/2022

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

This appeal in for A.Y.2015-16 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in appeal No.CIT(A)-11, Mumbai/10004/2017-18 dated 25/07/2022 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 29/09/2017 by the ld. Income Tax Officer-1(3)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2.

Though the assessee raised several grounds of appeal, we find that the main preliminary ground raised by the assessee is challenging the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in violation of principles of natural justice.

3.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) in para 6 of his order had stated that the final notice of hearing was issued on 14/07/2022 calling for submissions on or before 21/07/2022. But we find that assessee on 21/07/2022 had sought adjournment electronically duly stating the reasons thereon and sought adjournment upto 05/08/2022. The evidence in this regard has been placed on record by the ld. AR. From the perusal of the said evidence placed on record, it is found that even on 04/08/2022 the Income Tax portal had shown the status of the request made by the assessee as “open”. But we find that the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) ignoring this adjournment letter of the assessee had proceeded to dispose of the appeal exparte on 25/07/2022 itself which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, in these circumstances, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. All other issues are left open on merits. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 26/10/2022

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →