LADULAL HARAKCAND KANTHER ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3335/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 August 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (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 noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. In the interest of natural justice, all issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. A cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13, as the assessee did not appear before the AO or respond to notices from the CIT(A). The assessee also did not appear before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits. Restoration of issues to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Assessment Year 2012-13 Ladulal Harakchand Kanther, Income Tax Officer, F.No. 304, Plot No. 53, Ward-28(2)(1), Mangal Tower, Sector-17, vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Vashi, M.K.Road, Church Gate, Navi Mumbai Mumbai. PAN : AFAPK2122G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 13-08-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13-08-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M :

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt. 06-05-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and it relates to AY. 2012-13.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) was constrained to pass the order ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by him. Accordingly, we prefer to dispose of this appeal ex-parte without the presence of the assessee.

3.

The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee did not appear before the AOalso and hence he was also constrained to pass the order to the best of his judgement u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟).

4.

However, we noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, we restore all the issues before us to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits.Since the assessee was non-cooperative before both the tax authorities, we are of the view that the assessee should be imposed a cost in order to make him understand the importance of income tax proceedings. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) upon the assesseewhich shall be paid to the credit of the Income Tax Department as „Other Fees‟ within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

5.

Subject to payment of the above cost, which shall be verified by the Ld.CIT(A), all the issues are restored to the file of theLd.CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits. We also direct the assessee to fully co- operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →