M/S SHREE MOMAI KRUPA JEWELLERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1314/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 November 2021AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) issued notices, but the assessee could not attend, and the appeal was decided ex parte on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.

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. Laxmi Thakur
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)-45, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in Appeal No. CIT(A)-45/ ACIT-32(3)/ITA-56/2017-18 dated 03.05.2019. The assessment was framed by Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – 32(3), Mumbai for Assessment Year 2014-15 vide his order dated 07.12.2016 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 fairly stated that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and that the order is passed ex parte based on merits. The learned counsel stated that no opportunity of being heard was provided by the CIT(A) and hence, she

M/s. Shree Momai Krupa Jewellers requested that the matter be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee so that the appeal before CIT(A) can be represented properly. To this proposition, the learned Sr. DR has not raised any objection.

3.

After hearing both the sides and going through the order of the CIT(A), it is noticed that no doubt the CIT(A) has issued notices three times, but the assessee could not attend. It seems that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee for non-prosecution and even the issue was decided on merits after considering the records. It seems that the CIT(A) has not allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for afresh adjudication. Needless to say, CIT(A) will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to represent the case as and when it is fixed.

4.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →