ANIL SHRIRAM HINGE ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 103, WARD, 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2501/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (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 the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and there was a discrepancy in email addresses. Therefore, the tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-appearance. The assessee claims they did not receive any notice, while the Revenue states multiple notices were issued. The tribunal noted a discrepancy in the email addresses provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal was rightly dismissed for non-appearance due to alleged non-receipt of notices, or if it should be remanded for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

IT Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “J (SMC

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Joshi
For Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Hearing: 17.09.2024Pronounced: 23.09.2024

O R D E R

PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM :

1.

The present appeal arises out of the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] for A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-appearance without adjudicating the issue on merits.

2.1 The ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not receive any notice and therefore was unaware about the dates of hearing fixed by the Ld. CIT(A). He humbly prayed for one more opportunity to be granted.

P a g e | 2 2.2 On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that 5 notices were issued to the assessee, which was not adhered with. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in dismissing the appeal for non- prosecution.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides. 3. We note that Ld. CIT(A) issued 3 notices between 28/08/2018 and 30/07/2019. Another notice was issued during the Covid-19 period, and the last notice was issued on 04/03/2023, fixing the date of hearing on 13.03.2023. It is further noted that, e-mail address mentioned in Form 35 is different from e-mail address mentioned in Form 36. There is nothing on record to controvert the submission of assessee regarding service of notice.

3.1 Considering the fact that assessee had not received any notice, we deem it proper to remit this appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue on merit. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents / evidences in support of his claim which shall be verified by the Ld. CIT(A) for calling of a remand report. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard shall be given to the assessee in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.09.2024

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →