KANTILAL DAMJI GADA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 25(2)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5378/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 December 2024AY 2012-23Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (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 both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders because the assessee, or their representative, did not appear. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges an order by the CIT(A) related to AY 2012-13. The assessment was re-opened based on information from a search conducted in another case, and the AO passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's consultant's failure to appear. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) due to the non-appearance of the assessee's representative are justifiable, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 23- 08-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and it relates to AY.2012-13.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessment of the year under consideration was re-opened by the AO on the basis of an information obtained in search the action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) conducted in the case of M/s. Evergreen Enterprises. He submitted that the assessee had entrusted the job of handling income tax matters to a consultant, but the said consultant failed to appear before the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, both the authorities have passed the orders ex-parte, without presence of the assessee. The Ld.AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO, only for want of information and the assessee would be in a position to furnish the same to the AO, if an opportunity is given. Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for examining all the issues afresh.

3.

The Ld.DR, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee has failed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A), despite giving several opportunities and hence, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

I heard the parties and perused the record. I notice that the AO was constrained to pass the order to the best of his judgment u/s. 144 of the Act, since the assessee did not appear before him. Similarly, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order, since none appeared before him despite issuing several notices. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, I am of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, I set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for examining the same afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the issue.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 26-12-2024

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →