OMKAR MULTIPROJECTS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-15(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4236/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 April 2021AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. There was a delay of 111 days in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the accountant's absence. The Tribunal condoned the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution instead of deciding it on merits. The issue of delay in filing the appeal was also considered.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, Shri Shreekala Pardeshi
Pronounced: 01.04.2021

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 29.11.2018, pertaining to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2014-15, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of filing the appeal by 111 days. The reasonable cause for the delay has been attributed to the sudden resignation/absence of the Accountant who was the in-charge of these affairs. Upon hearing both the counsel, the delay is condoned.

3.

Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the records, we find that it is incumbent upon the ld. CIT(A) to pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismiss

(A.Y. 2014-15) Omkar Multiprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT the appeal for non-prosecution. For this purpose, we place reliance upon the following case laws: 1. CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR 302 (Bom) 2. CIT vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC)

4.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on merits of the case, after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.

5.

The ld. Counsel of the assessee has also given undertaking that he shall appear before the ld. CIT(A) suo moto within two months of this order to canvas the appeal.

6.

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962, by placing the details on the notice board on 01.04.2021 Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) (Shamim Yahya) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai; Dated : 01.04.2021 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →