RAMESH SURENDRA AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-8(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in processing the appeal and the Assessee's claim of not receiving notices due to this delay. Considering the peculiar facts and for substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made additions on account of disallowance of dividend income, rental income, and unexplained cash credit. The Assessee appealed these additions, but the appeal was delayed in processing.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal processing delay justifies remanding the case back to the Commissioner and whether the Assessee is to be given another opportunity to present documents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.06.2024, 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. 2011-12.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 19.03.2014 u/s 143(3) of the Act, has made various additions including the amount of Rs.1,25,298/- on account of disallowance of addition of dividend income, Rs.5,52,000/- on account of rental income and Rs.65,48,281/- on account of unexplained cash credit.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, chhekgende3d the aforesaid addition by filling first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on 25.04.2014. As appears in para-no.3 of the impugned order, the appeal filed by the Assessee was taken into consideration in the month of May and June of 2017 and thereafter only on 07.06.2024 i.e. after a gap of 7 years and therefore, this reason seems to be plausible reason for not receiving the notices and/or non-appearance, as claimed by the Assessee. Even we observe that the Ld. Commissioner in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of his claim by the Assessee which he has not filed, decided the appeal of the Assessee inlimine but not in the right perspective of the issues/additions. Hence considering the peculiar facts and circumcises, for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and to file the relevant material/documents as would be required by the Ld. Commissioner and in case of subsequent default, we clarify that the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.10.2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
