APURVA PARESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs MUM-C-91, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), RANGE CODE- 431, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEEAssessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shreyas Sardesai on behalf of Shri Paras Savla,

For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR

PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M :

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt.18-10-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟]
and it relates to AY. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we notice that the Ld.CIT(A) was constrained to pass the ex-parte order since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by him. We also notice that the Ld.CIT(A) did not dispose of the issues urged in the appeal on merits also. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one

2
more opportunity to present his case properly before the Ld.CIT(A).
Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for examining the same afresh. After affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.
3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05-02-2025 [ANIKESH BANERJEE]

[B.R. BASKARAN]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai,
Dated: 05-02-2025

TNMM

Copy to :
1)
The Appellant
2)
The Respondent
3)
The CIT concerned
4)
The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai
5)
Guard file

By Order

Dy./Asst.

APURVA PARESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. MUM-C-91, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), RANGE CODE- 431, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI