Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear for the hearing despite notice. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal based on a previous decision without considering the merits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the assessee's grievance on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case.
Sections Cited
IT Act 38 ITD 320
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dt. 18.01.2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment by an ex parte order dismissing the appeal in lamini. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice. We decide to proceed ex parte. 4. On perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee drawing support from the 2 decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. 38 ITD 320. We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the grievance of the assessee considering the merits of the case, therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decided afresh on merits of the case after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Order pronounced in the Court on 2nd September, 2024 at Mumbai. (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER