Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2019-20. The original assessment under section 147 involved an addition of Rs. 33,04,887/- under sections 68, 69 & 69C. The assessee failed to respond to the CIT(A)'s notices, leading to an ex parte decision.
Held
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order in a similar case for AY 2020-21, decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was conditional upon the payment of a cost of Rs. 11,000/- to the Income Tax Department within two months.
Key Issues
Whether to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) after an ex parte order was passed due to non-compliance with notices, and if so, under what conditions.
Sections Cited
147, 250, 68, 69, 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC
Vaishali Ketan Gandhi vs ACIT, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai 121-B, 7-Dwarka Bldg, Park Maharashtra, Pin-400020 Road, Near Shivsena Office, Parle East, Mumbai, Pin- 400057 PAN :AIYPG9951E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Saurabh Bhat Respondent by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 08/04/2026 Date of pronouncement : 10/04/2026 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): Instant appeal by the assessee filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax, Appeal-53, Mumbai (for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”), order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), date of order 13-12-2025 for A.Y. 2019-20. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, CC-5(4), Mumbai (for brevity the “Ld. AO”), order passed under section 147 of the Act, date of order 22/03/2024.
2 ITYA No.1390/Mum/2026 Smt. Vaishali Ketan Gandhi 3. The assessment was concluded u/sec 147 of the Act with an addition of Rs.33,04,887/- under Sections 68,69 & 69C of the Act. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), upon due consideration issued four notices of hearing to the assessee. However, as the assessee failed to respond to any of the notice, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to adjudicate the appeal ex parte and rendered a decision on the merits of the case.
We observe that the assessee has an outstanding demand, and the impugned appellate order has been passed ex parte. The Ld. AR contended that a similar situation had arisen in A.Y. 2020–21, wherein the appellate order was also passed ex parte. The assessee had challenged the said order before the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in ITA No. 1391/Mum/2026. The Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 01.04.2026, recorded the following observations, which are reproduced here in below:– “The case is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh, subject to cost of a 11,000 in the Revenue Department under 'Other Head' within 15 days. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court.”
In the interest of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves to be granted one more opportunity to properly present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is noted that the assessee has failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation for its non-compliance with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). We respectfully follow the order of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for AY 2020–21. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has 3 ITYA No.1390/Mum/2026 Smt. Vaishali Ketan Gandhi accepted the said order of the Coordinate Bench for AY 2020-21 and has already paid the cost of Rs. 11,000/-, the copy of the challan for which has been placed on record.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that an appropriate cost deserves to be imposed so as to emphasize the importance of due compliance with the income-tax proceedings. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of the Income Tax Department under “Other Head” within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of the aforesaid cost, which shall be duly verified by the Ld. CIT(A), all issues are remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the case to ensure the appellate procedure remains uninfluenced before the Ld. CIT(A). It is imperative that the assessee is afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, the assessee is expected to exercise due diligence in the appellate proceedings to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the appeal.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th day of April 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 10/04/2026 SAUMYA Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: