ASHRAF ABDUL GANI KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. WARD 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1237/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 September 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

IT Act 38 ITD 320

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON’BLE

Hearing: 02/09/2024Pronounced: 02/09/2024

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

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.

2.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →