What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be met by deciding the lis on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to both parties. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal was filed challenging an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The assessee claimed to be ex-parte before the CIT(A) because their authorized representative had expired, and they were unaware of the hearing dates. The revenue controverted these submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) and if not, whether the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.

Bhanji Ambavi Patel, Thane vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

For Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha, Sr. DR

Hearing: 20.01.2025Pronounced: 22.01.2025

Assessee by Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi 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), in this regard Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had engaged services of Shri Kailash Sangoi and 2 Bhanji Ambavi Patel, Mumbai the e-mail ID and phone number in Form -35 was that of Shri Kailash Sangoi, unfortunately he expired on 23.10.2016 and because of this reason assessee was unaware regarding the dates of hearing of the appeal and hence could not appear before Ld. CIT(A) and in this regard death certificate of the accountant and affidavit of the assessee has been filed. On the other hand the Ld. DR controverter the submissions made by the Ld. AR

Be that as it may, in our view the interest of justice would be met in case the lis between the parties is decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 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 CIT(A). And in case proper and sufficient opportunity is not given to the asessee then in that eventuality the rights of the assessee shall be prejudice. Thus keeping in view the above, factual position, the present appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of CIT(A) for deciding it afresh on merits by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

Before parting, I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) shall in no 3 Bhanji Ambavi Patel, Mumbai 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 stands allowed for statistical purposes.

BHANJI AMBAVI PATEL,THANE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THANE, THANE

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