MOHAMMED FASIHUDDIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's detention. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside as it was passed ex-parte without deciding the issue on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-attendance. The assessee had a significant delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT due to being under detention for several years.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-attendance without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard and deciding the issue on merit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], for assessment year 2012-13 raising following grounds:
Mohmmed Fasihuddin 2 ITA No. 958/M/2022
1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on account of the appeal on account of non-attendance. attendance.
The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given a reasonable opportunity by The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given a reasonable opportunity by The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given a reasonable opportunity by issuing show cause on the bases of his findings to dismiss the issuing show cause on the bases of his findings to dismiss the issuing show cause on the bases of his findings to dismiss the appeal which he has erred by failing to give the opportunity of appeal which he has erred by failing to give the opportunity of appeal which he has erred by failing to give the opportunity of hearing. hearing. 2. At the outset, we may like to mention that the Registry has , we may like to mention that the Registry has , we may like to mention that the Registry has pointed out a delay of 843 days in filing the appeal. pointed out a delay of 843 days in filing the appeal. pointed out a delay of 843 days in filing the appeal. From the application of the assessee for condonation of delay along with application of the assessee for condonation of delay along with application of the assessee for condonation of delay along with affidavit filed, it is found that affidavit filed, it is found that submitted that assessee was under submitted that assessee was under detention for almost a period of six years and released on bail on detention for almost a period of six years and released on bail on detention for almost a period of six years and released on bail on 18.01.2020 and thus and thus notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) remain notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) remain unattended and therefore, comments on the remand report could unattended and therefore, comments on the remand report could unattended and therefore, comments on the remand report could not be filed by the asessee. not be filed by the asessee. We have heard submission of the Ld. ave heard submission of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the material on Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the material on Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the material on record on the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal. record on the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal. record on the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal. In view of the detention of the assessee, there is a reasonable cause in filing of the detention of the assessee, there is a reasonable cause in filing of the detention of the assessee, there is a reasonable cause in filing
Mohmmed Fasihuddin 3 ITA No. 958/M/2022 the appeal with a del the appeal with a delay of more than 800 days. The appeal is ay of more than 800 days. The appeal is according admitted for adjudication. according admitted for adjudication.
None attended on behalf of the assessee despite notifying and None attended on behalf of the assessee despite notifying and None attended on behalf of the assessee despite notifying and therefore appeal was was heard ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing qua the assessee after hearing the arguments of the Ld. D the arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). We find tative (DR). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte without deciding parte without deciding issue on merit. As per the provisions of section 251, the Ld. CIT(A) is issue on merit. As per the provisions of section 251, the Ld. CIT(A) is issue on merit. As per the provisions of section 251, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to decide the issue on merit and pass a reasoned and required to decide the issue on merit and pass a reasoned and required to decide the issue on merit and pass a reasoned and speaking order. In the grounds, speaking order. In the grounds, the assessee has raised that appeal the assessee has raised that appeal has been dismissed for want of submission of the assessee on the has been dismissed for want of submission of the assessee on the has been dismissed for want of submission of the assessee on the remand report of the Assessing Officer. remand report of the Assessing Officer.
3.1 In view of the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the In view of the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the In view of the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore r of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for back to him for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being
Mohmmed Fasihuddin 4 ITA No. 958/M/2022 heard. The ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 251
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- ITO(Exemption), Ward, Jaipur vs Raj Rishi Bhartihari Matsya University…ITA 1167/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Urun Vividh Karyakari Vikas Society, Walwa vs ITO WD-5, SangliITA 472/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Shyam Sunder, Ballabgarh vs ITO, Ward 2(3), WardITA 1339/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Shyam Sunder, Ballabgarh vs ITO, Ward 2(3), FaridabadITA 1295/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026