NCK SONS EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR CIR 2(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the AO, directing the AO to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case and frame the assessment accordingly.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), resulting in ex-parte orders. The assessee challenged these orders, claiming a lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were valid, given the assessee's non-appearance and claim of denial 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, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.02.2010 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 1997-98.
At the outset, we would like to mention that the assessee filed adjournment letter for adjourning the case. After perusal of the order sheet entry, we find that on several occasions the assessee applied for the adjournments which were granted also. A perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A) and AO reveals that assessee has not appeared before either of the parties below and assessment was framed under section 144/254 of the Act.
After hearing the Ld. D.R. and perusing the facts on record, we find that the assessment was framed ex-parte under section 144 of the Act by the AO. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) also framed ex-parte appellate order due to non appearance of the assessee or its authorized representative . The assessee has taken a ground challenging the ex-parte order on the ground that no reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee thereby causing miscarriage of natural justice. Under these circumstances, we feel that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present his case before the AO. Accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to hear the assessee and frame the assessment as per facts and law. Assessee is also directed to appear before the AO within one month from the date of receipt of this order of the Tribunal and also as and when required by the AO in connection with the hearing of this case. Since we have restored the issue back to the file of the AO the other grounds of the assessee need not be adjudicated.
The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2018.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026