JAYESH JASHWNAT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4735/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial 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 no notice or opportunity was granted to the assessee before the first appeal was decided by the NFAC. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the tribunal for the hearing of his appeal against the order passed by the NFAC. The tribunal proceeded ex-parte after considering the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the impugned order passed by NFAC is liable to be set aside for want of proper notice and opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 12.12.2024Pronounced: 12.12.2024

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.07.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

Despite sending notice to the Assessee for the date of hearing for today at the address mentioned in form No.36 the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment. Therefore, this Court is constrained to decide this appeal as ex-parte by taking into consideration the orders passed by the authorities below and by hearing the Ld. D.R. who substantiated the impugned order.

3.

However, at the outset, it appears from the impugned order that no notice/opportunity has been given to the Assessee before deciding the first appeal filed by the Assessee and passing the impugned order. Therefore, for the just decision of the case and for the ends of substantial justice, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and to remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is remanded accordingly.

4.

It is clarified that the Assessee shall provide proper address, email and telephone number to the Ld. Commissioner and in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →