SANWALCHAND UDAYCHAND BAFNA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (3)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and violated principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming disallowances without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee's appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution without deciding the issues on merit.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without deciding the appeal on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:
These two appeals of two different assessee are arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-30, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal Nos. CIT(A)- 30/19(3)(2)/10665 & 10667/17-18 even date 04.04.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- Sanwalchand Udaychand Bafna & Sanwalchand Udaychand Bafna (HUF) ; AY 10-11 19(3)(2) Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2010-11 even date 15.12.2017 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the appeals of different assessee’s, hence, I will take the facts from ITA No. 4367/Mum/2019 and will decide the issue.
At the outset, it is noticed from the order of the CIT(A) that CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order and hearing of appeal was fixed first on 18.03.2019 and appellate order was passed on 04.04.2019. The disallowance has been confirmed by the CIT(A) on presumptions, assumptions, conjunctures and surmises and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee in violation of principles of natural justice.
When this was pointed out to Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative, Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, he fairly conceded the position and could not controvert the above submissions.
I find that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte for non-prosecution, but failed to decide the issue on merit in respect of issues challenged in appeal. No doubt, it is the responsibility of the person who files appeal to go to the appellate authorities and file necessary evidences for speedy disposal of appeal. When the appellant did not appear before the authority as and when the appeal is called for hearing, the appellate authority is left with no option but to dispose off, appeal on the basis of materials available on record. However, such appeal should be decided on merits. In Sanwalchand Udaychand Bafna & Sanwalchand Udaychand Bafna (HUF) ; AY 10-11 this case, on perusal the order passed by the learned CIT(A), I find that the CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution without discussing the issues challenged in appeal on merit. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the appeal needs to be set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the issue involved in appeal on merits. Hence, I set aside the appeal to the learned CIT(A) and direct him to reconsider the issue in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needles to say, the assessee shall go before the learned CIT(A) and file necessary evidences or documents to justify his case. In case, the assessee fails to appear before the learned CIT(A), then CIT(A) is free to take decision in accordance with law.
As the facts and circumstances in ITA No. 4366/Mum/2019 are exactly identical to ITA NO. 4367/Mum/2019. Therefore, findings given by me in the impugned order in ITA No. 4367/Mum/2019 would mutatis mutandis apply to ITA No. 4366/Mum/2019 as well. Hence, this appeal of assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.10.2021. (भहावीय स िंह /MAHAVIR SINGH) (उऩाध्मक्ष / VICE PRESIDENT) भ िंफई, ददनािंक/ Mumbai, Dated: 07.10.2021 सुदीप सरकार, व.निजी सचिव / Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Sanwalchand Udaychand Bafna & Sanwalchand Udaychand Bafna (HUF) ; AY 10-11 आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आम क्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A) 3. आमकय आम क्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रतततनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भ िंफई / DR, ITAT,
Mumbai गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, त्मावऩत प्रतत //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Astt.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026