M/S. N. CHANDRA GLOBAL INFOTAINMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1) (3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal decided to remit the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was to provide the assessee with another opportunity of hearing, considering the ex-parte nature of the order and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12 was heard. The assessee did not appear, but the Departmental Representative did not oppose remitting the matter back to the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI B BENCH, MUMBAI
N Chandra Global Infotainment Ltd. ……………….………Appellant Sangeeta Cinema, Prathmesh Nagar, Datta Mandir Road, Malad (E), Mumbai 400 097 [PAN: AABCN6680P] Vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(3) Mumbai ……………………Respondent Appearances by None for the appellant Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 28.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.09.2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP:
1. 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has called into question the correctness of the ex-parte order dated 20th March 2020 passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12.
2. None appeared for the assessee but we have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material on record and dully considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position.
3. The learned Departmental Representative did not seriously oppose our suggestion of remitting the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication de novo after affording yet another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the impugned order is an ex-parte order passed at a time when covid pandemic had already begun. We are of the view that in the interest of substantial justice and on the facts of this case, it will be appropriate to remit the matter to the Assessment year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 2 file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, by way of a speaking order and after giving yet another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We order, accordingly.
We may also add that the assessee has moved a condonation petition as the appeal was filed on 01.10.2021 whereas the order was communicated to the assessee on 20.03.2020. However this delay is covered by the covid period relaxations and accordingly stands condoned.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on the 27th day of September, 2022.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
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