REVIVE SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3 (3)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) because hearing notices were sent to an old address. The assessee claimed they could not appear before the appellate authority due to this.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice to the assessee, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -8, Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Income Tax Act.
Revive Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 2 - 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the LdCIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order and the appeal hearing notices were sent to the old address of the assessee office and therefore could not appear before the appellate Authority. Further the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity of hearing be provided to the assessee to substantiate the case with the evidences and explanations. Contra, the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the LdCIT(A) and restore the disputed issues to the file of the LdCIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and pass a speaking order. Further, adequate opportunity of hearing be provided to the assessee. The assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
Revive Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 3 - 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.05.2021
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 Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026