SHREEJI TRANSLOGISTICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(3)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) order was not in accordance with Section 251 of the Act and violated natural justice by not providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The order was set aside for fresh adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex parte without deciding the issues on merits, citing the assessee's requests for adjournment.
What were the issues?
Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) can dismiss an appeal ex parte without deciding the issues on merits and if such an order violates principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN
O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey (JM) –
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 17-06-2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai for the assessment year 2013- 14. 2. The basic grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against ex parte disposal of its appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals), that too, without deciding the issues on merits.
Briefly the facts are, the assessee, a resident company, is engaged in the business of civil contractor. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 24-09-2013 declaring total income at Rs.1,76,76,962/-. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30-12-2015 determining the total income at Rs.1,95,18,433/- after making certain additions. Against assessment order so passed, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. However, by the impugned order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.
We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. As could be seen from the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal was fixed for hearing before learned Commissioner (Appeals) on a couple of occasions and on both the occasions, the authorized representative of the assessee sought adjournment. Considering the above, learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the assessee was not serious in prosecuting its appeal and accordingly proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte. However, while doing so, manifestly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issues raised in the appeal on merits, but, has simply dismissed the appeal in limine due to non-appearance of the assessee. This, in our view, is not in accordance with the mandate of section 251 of the Act. Furthermore, the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is in gross violation of rules of natural justice, as, he has not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues back to his file for fresh adjudication, after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We must observe, learned Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of the appeal has to decide all the issues raised by the assessee on merits with a speaking order. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11/03/2021. Sd/- sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dt : 11/03/2021 Pavanan Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT concerned 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File By Order
More judgments on Section 251
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- ITO(Exemption), Ward, Jaipur vs Raj Rishi Bhartihari Matsya University…ITA 1167/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Urun Vividh Karyakari Vikas Society, Walwa vs ITO WD-5, SangliITA 472/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Shyam Sunder, Ballabgarh vs ITO, Ward 2(3), WardITA 1339/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Shyam Sunder, Ballabgarh vs ITO, Ward 2(3), FaridabadITA 1295/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026