HINDUSTAN CANDLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3426/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (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 held that the approach adopted by the CIT(A) was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal without granting an opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) reproduced the grounds raised by the assessee and then dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without granting the appellant an opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, E BENCH, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Hindustan Candle Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. Khatau Terrace, Dr. S.S.Rao Road, Lal Baug, Mumbai – 400012 Maharashtra. [PAN: AAACH1534R] …………. Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(2), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, …………. Respondent Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra. Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Satish Mody For the Respondent/Department : Shri Biswanath Das Date Conclusion of hearing : 13.08.2024 Pronouncement of order : 29.10.2024 O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 05/06/2024, passed by the Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as „the CIT(A)‟] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 17/12/2019, passed under Section 144 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-2018.

2.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material on Assessment Year: 2017-2018 record. The primary grievance of the Appellant is that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without granting the Appellant an opportunity of being heard. On perusal of the order impugned by way of present appeal, we find that the CIT(A) has in paragraph 1 to 8 reproduced the grounds raised

by the Appellant, and thereafter, in paragraph 9 dismissed the appeal by stating as under: “9. The appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.”

3. In our view the approach adopted by CIT(A) cannot be countenanced being in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the order, dated 05/06/2024, passed by the CIT(A) is set aside with the directions to decide the appeal afresh after granting the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Appellant is directed to be vigilant and track the proceedings over ITBA portal. It is clarified that in case the Appellant fails to enter appearance before the CIT(A) or fails to file relevant documents/details to support his claim, the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of material on record. Thus Ground No.1 and 8 raised by the Appellant is allowed and therefore, all the other grounds raised are dismissed as being infructuous.

In result, in terms of paragraph 3 above, the present appeal preferred by the Appellant is allowed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →