Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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
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. 2. 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.
Order pronounced in the open Court in ounced in the open Court in 07/09 /09/2022. Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA AMIT SHUKLA) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 07/09/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Sr. Private Secretary) (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai