GINDO SAJJAN YADAV,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(4), MUMBAI CITY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4274/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (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 condoned the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an order of the CIT(A) that dismissed their appeal against a penalty order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal because the assessee failed to appear, despite the assessee claiming they did not receive proper notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a proper hearing, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G BENCH, MUMBAI

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →