MRS. SUNITA AMIT PATANWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 114/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2021AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for one more opportunity, subject to a cost of ₹10,000/- to the Legal Aid Authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee requested an adjournment, but the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance with notices. The Assessing Officer's order was also passed ex-parte under Section 144 read with Section 147.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices is sustainable, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Milind Sheth/ Devan Patil, ARs’
Hearing: 29.09.2021Pronounced: 29.09.2021

O R D E R

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →