ANOOP KUMAR KISHORILAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-26(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 748/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 December 2020AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The assessee's representative submitted that the assessee could not appear before the appellate authority for various reasons and had a strong case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 17/12/2020

passed an ex-parte order and the assessee for the various reasons could not appear before the appellate Authority and the assessee has a good case on merits. Therefore, prayed for an opportunity of hearing be provided to the assessee to substantiate the case with the evidences and explanations. Contra, the LdDR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the LdCIT(A) and restore the disputed issues to the file of the LdCIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and pass a speaking and reasoned order. Further, adequate opportunity of hearing be provided to the assessee. The assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. & 749 /Mum/2019 Anoop Kumar Kishorilal Gupta., Mumbai. - 3 -

3. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →