M/S REGAL SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3981/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 March 2021AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for default and is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the assessee's absence. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) relied on a previous tribunal decision and dismissed the appeal for non-appearance of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits of the case, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 17.03.2021Pronounced: 17.03.2021

O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-24, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in dated 20.03.2017. The assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai (in short DCIT/ AO), for the A.Y. 2012-13 vide

2.

The first issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) passing ex-parte order in gross violation of Principles of natural justice. For this assessee has raised the following ground No.1:-

“1. Impugned order passed exparte by the CIT(A) is bad in law.

1.

The impugned Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). (Ld. CIT(A)) has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, equity, fair play and good conscience. The impugned order has been passed ex-parte. Be that as it may, non- appearance cannot be reason for condirmation of demand. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) was in duty bound to give findings on the merits of the case. See: Nikhil Ghosh vs. Income Tax Officer (Appeal No.ITA No. 683/Kol/2016) and Ajay Sharma Vs. DCIT, (ITA Nos. 3654/Del/2016). Hence, on the above count alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”

3.

At the outset, it is noticed from the order of CIT(A) that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appellate order without dealing the issue on merits. The CIT(A) has just relied on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sd/- Sd/- (ए रयफ़ौय यहभान / S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (भहावीय स िंह /MAHAVIR SINGH) (रेखा दस्म / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (उऩाध्मक्ष / VICE PRESIDENT) भुिंफई, ददनािंक/ Mumbai, Dated: 17.03.2021 ुदीऩ यकाय, व. ननजी चिव/ Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →