Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
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
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.
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.”
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