FAZA THREE AUTOFAD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-6(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) issued notices, the assessee failed to respond, and the issues were not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13. The assessee contended that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted, and adjournment applications on medical grounds were not considered.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without granting proper opportunity of hearing and whether Section 43A of the Income Tax Act was applicable to the disallowance of depreciation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE
O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 31.03.2022 for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2012-13.
2. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following common grounds in its appeals: - “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the ex parte order and thereby confirming the order passed by the 2 & 1465/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2010-11) Faze Three Autofad Ltd., Assessing Officer. The learned CIT (A) has erred in not granting proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of depreciation and additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 42,79,565/- by applying the provisions of S. 43A of the Act. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of S. 43A of the Act are not applicable in the facts of the case.
The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.
3. In both the appeals filed by the assessee, assessee has raised the ground that Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order exparte without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and Ld. AR of the assessee also brought to our notice order of the Ld.CIT(A) in both the appeals and brought to our notice that Ld.CIT(A) has issued several notices to the assessee and assessee has not responded and furnished any information nor it has sought any adjournment, Accordingly, he dismissed the appeals exparte. Further, he brought to our notice that assessee has sought adjournment before the Ld.CIT(A) on two occasions on 25.08.2021 and 14.10.2021 on medical grounds. However, Ld.CIT(A) has not considered those applications. He prayed that these appeals may be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
4. On the other hand, Ld. DR objected to the above submissions and submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has given several opportunities of which
5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that even though Ld.CIT(A) issued several notices through ITBA system, however, assessee failed to respond to these notices and it is pertinent to note that these notices were issued during pandemic period except last notice dated 02.03.2022. We also notice that Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits. Therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for the sake of overall justice to adjudicate on the merits after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th August, 2022.
More judgments on Section 43A
- M/S. Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs Addl. CIT, New DelhiITA 1958/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2026AY 2012-13
- Apraava Renewable Energy Private Limited… vs The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), AhmedabadITA 92/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 May 2026AY 2017-18
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2… vs Unimed Technologies Limited, PanchmahalITA 279/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
- Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited… vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1234/BANG/2025[AY 2021-22]Status: Disposed30 Jan 2026
- Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT Intl Tax 1(1), ChennaiITTPA 12/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed23 Jan 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026