SHRI. RAJESH NANJI GALA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12 (1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6918/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 November 2021AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard due to notices being sent to an incorrect address. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte. The assessee claims they did not receive notices because the CIT(A) sent them to a wrong address, despite the correct address being provided in Form 35.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed proper procedure by sending notices to the correct address and providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Appellant: Ms. Reepal Tralshwala
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna
Hearing: 28/10/2021Pronounced: 05/11/2021

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in Appeal No. CIT(A)-20/ IT-10256/2018-19 dated 29.08.2019. The assessment was framed by Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – 12(1)(1), Mumbai for Assessment Year 2016-17 vide his order dated 19.12.2018 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that the order passed by the CIT(A) is ex parte order and assessee was never allowed opportunity of being heard as the CIT(A) had issued three notices on a wrong address. The learned counsel for the assessee filed copies of notices issued by Rajesh Nanji Gala the CIT(A) at pages 60 to 62 of the Paper Book and also drew my attention to Form no. 35 filed at page 47 of Paper Book wherein the address is mentioned to which notice is to be sent. The address mentioned in Form no. 35 is different than that mentioned in the notices issued by CIT(A). Hence, assessee was not aware of any notices for fixation of the appeal. In view of the above, the learned counsel stated that the matter can be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. When these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. DR, he could not controvert the above situation.

3.

After hearing the rival contentions and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for afresh adjudication. Needless to say, the CIT(A) will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also send notice on the correct address mentioned in Form no. 35.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 5th November, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →