SHRI. SHIVAJI DATTA WALUNJ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-31 (3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the matter in the absence of the assessee without providing a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The assessee claimed that notices were not received due to the accountant's relocation and lack of internet access.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)73 citing74 ITR 1 · 1969 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) relevant to the A.Y.2012- 13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1.1. Appellant has stopped the business and has shifted to his native place. 1.2 All the notices have been delivered on the email ID of Accountant who has also left the city and settled down in small village.
1.3 As per the facts given by the Accountant, he could not access the net and is not aware of the notices being received by him on his email and hence, he has not informed the appellant regarding notices issued and not received by him. It is respectfully submitted that appellant has fully explained the facts of the case in the ground of appeal and on the basis of submission made, CIT(A) should have taken view and allow relief. Appellant should have given fresh opportunity of hearing on the natural justice.
2. The learned appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.”
3. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Department and has gone through the case carefully. We find that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy in absence of the assessee and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. However, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. On appraisal of the order of the CIT(A) dated 30.09.2019 passed by the CIT(A) we find that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy in absence of the assessee/Representative of the assessee without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the accordance with law. A proper and reasonable opportunity is required to be given to the assessee before the deciding the matter of controversy in accordance with law.
For this proposition we placed reliance upon the following case laws.
(1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on all the issues and restore the matter before the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/07/2021
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
