M/S YASH RAJ FILMS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE(1(, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order. Considering the assessee's request for a final opportunity and their assurance of cooperation, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arose from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity to present their case. The assessee requested one final opportunity before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The merits of the disallowances/additions were left open for denovo adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM
आदेश / O R D E R एभ. फारगणेश, रेखा सदस्म के द्वाया /
PER M. BALAGANESH, AM:
This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-58, Thane [in short CIT(A)], dated 30.04.2019. The assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 29.05.2014 under section
Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal contesting various disallowance/ additions made by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A), we find that the assessee has raised a primary ground that the learned CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee and on perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A), we find that fair opportunities were indeed given to the assessee for representation which were not complied with by the assessee. The learned AR before us prayed for one final opportunity to be given before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The learned AR also assured that he will not take any adjournment before the learned CIT(A) and would co-operate in the early disposal of the appeal before the learned CIT(A). We find that since, ex-parte order has been passed by the learned CIT(A), this is a fit case for remanding the appeal before the learned CIT(A) to give more effective opportunity to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the appeal by the learned CIT(A) by not seeking any adjournment except due to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances. In view of this decision, the various grounds raised by the assessee on merits are left open and are remanded back to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
More judgments on Section 144C(4)
- Ucweb Mobile Private Ltd vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department and…CWP/4329/20247 Aug 2026
- Kingfa Science & Technology (India)… vs Asst. Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of…ITTPA 13/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Barclays Merchant Bank ( Singapore ) Ltd… vs JCIT International Taxation 1(2)(1), MumbaiITA 633/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Jul 2026AY 2014-15
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate… vs Siva Industries and Holdings Limited…ITTPA 29/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2026
- Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Corporate Circle3(1), ChennaiITTPA 28/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Apr 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026