SHRI SHAMIM HAIDER KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6697/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 April 2019AY 2012-133 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 restored the issue to the AO for a fresh decision, granting the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case on merits. This was done in the interest of justice and fair play.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) because the assessee's tax practitioner failed to attend hearings. The assessee only became aware of the ex-parte order upon receiving it.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
For Respondent: Shri Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Shri Vimal Punmiya
Hearing: 09/04/2019

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member

1.

The present appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 30/09/2016 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-38 hereinafter called [CIT(A)], Mumbai, in Appeal No.CIT(A)-38/ACIT26(3)/IT-04/2015-16, which is in tern arising out the assessment order dated 02/03/2015 framed u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 26(3), Mumbai, hereinafter called ACIT

2.

At the outset the Ld. AR pointed out that the case of the assessee was decided ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) for not attending

Shamim Haider Khan the hearing on various dates. The Ld. Counsel therefore submitted that since the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) despite various opportunities due to the fact that the assessee was totally relying on the Tax practitioners Shri K.M.Mehdi who did not attend the hearing before the CIT(A) despite various opportunities granted. The assessee only came to know when the ex-parte order was received by the assessee. The Ld. AR , therefore, prayed before the bench that in the interest of the justice and fairplay , the assessee may please be granted one opportunity to represent the case before the Ld. CIT(A) so that the matter could be decided on merits. The Ld. DR on the other hand objected to the restoration of the case to the file of the CIT(A) on the ground that assessee did not avail several opportunities allowed by the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

After hearing both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that in this case the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without considering the merit of the case. In our opinion assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent his case on merits. We are, therefore, inclined to restore the issue to the file of the AO to decide the matter afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 12.04. 2019

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →