J AND J PHARMA TECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7335/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 January 2026AY 2018-2019Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not being able to make an effective representation before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. The assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) and requested for restoration of the matter, citing 'sufficient cause' for not being able to represent properly.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to the assessee being ex-parte before the CIT(A) and submitting that there was sufficient cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri Vijar Mehta
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT DR
Hearing: 07.01.2026Pronounced: 08.01.2026

Date of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.01.2026 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 19.09.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14.

From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- 2. parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR filed an application explaining the circumstances before the bench

J and J Pharma Tech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. that there was ‘sufficient cause’ which prevented the assessee to represent properly before Ld. CIT(A) and requested to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.

3.

On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

4.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

5.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression

6.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08/01/2026

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →