What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed they could not appear due to the Covid-19 pandemic, while the revenue contended sufficient opportunities were given.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee is sustainable.

Inderjeetkaur Balvindersingh Kohli vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah

For Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha, Sr. DR

Hearing: 20.01.2025Pronounced: 22.01.2025

Assessee by Shri Vijay Shah Revenue by Shri Sunny Kachhwaha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.01.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 06.02.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’) for the assessment year 2014-15.

At the very outset, I noticed that assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(A) and on this aspect Ld. AR submitted that because of Covid-19 period the assessee could not appear and participate in the proceedings before the Ld. 2 Indrajeet Kumar, Mumbai CIT(A) and because of this reason the assessee could not substantiate his claim. Whereas on the contrary, Ld. DR submitted that sufficient and proper opportunity were granted to the assessee but still assessee could not substantiate his claim and thus relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

After having heard counsels for both the parties and having gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. I found that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee since the year 2020 to till year 2024 and the details of which are already mentioned in para 4 of the order of CIT(A). The maxim ‘Vigilantbus, non dormientibus, jurasubventiunt’ i.e ‘the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleeps over their rights’ is applicable in this case.

Be that as it may, In my view the interest of justice would be met in case the lis between the parties be decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, considering the above factual and legal position the Bench feels that the ends of justice would be met only if the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh and the rights of the revenue would not be prejudice. In case proper and sufficient opportunity is not given to the asessee then in that eventuality the rights of the assessee shall be prejudice.

3 Indrajeet Kumar, Mumbai However, for the lethargic and negligent action on the part of the assessee, a cost of Rs. 2000 is imposed on the assessee and the same shall be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the CIT(A) for proof and thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings and the appeal of the assessee is thus allowed for statistical purposes.

Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.01.2025. Mumbai, Dated 22/01/2025

INDERJEETKAUR BALVINDERSINGH KOHLI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(1)(5), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments