ATHENA INVESTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3840/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without a decision on merits. The assessee's counsel could not attend the final hearing due to medical exigencies.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and deciding on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM, & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

O R D E R

Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:

1.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 02.01.2017, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-37,

Athena Investment Mumbai for the quantum appeal of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 for AY 2007-08.

2.

The assessee is mainly aggrieved by ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) without giving any reasonable reason and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and not deciding the appeals on merits.

3.

Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 09.11.2016 and on that date, adjournment was filed and the same was adjourned to 06.12.2016 and again it was adjourned to 22.12.2016. He submitted that on that date, the Ld. Counsel could not attend due to certain medical exigencies. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudication on merits, therefore he requested that the matter be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

4.

On the other hand, Ld. DR does not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to be decided on merits.

Athena Investment 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the impugned order. We find that though on 2 occasions, the assessee has sought for adjournment, however on the last dated fixed for hearing on 22.12.2016, it appears that none appeared on behalf of the assessee for which, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to medical exigencies of authorized representative, he could not attend. Looking to the fact that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue before him on merits, therefore, in the interest of justice we remit back the entire appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law on the grounds raised before him after giving the assessee due and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in the hearing and to substantiate its case.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →