M/S A K MUNSHI YOJANA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4652/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Notices through the ITBA portal alone are insufficient for proper service.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution after notices were sent through the ITBA portal. The assessee argued that notices via the portal do not constitute proper service as they cannot be expected to check it daily.

What were the issues?

Whether dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution based solely on ITBA portal notices, without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, is justified.

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, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HONBLEShri Nitesh Joshi Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Pronounced: 15.05.2024

O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (AM)

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 25.10.2023 by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to A.Y.2015-16.

(A.Y: 2015-16) M/s. A.K. Munshi Yojana 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and in limine.

3.

Having heard rival contentions, we have carefully perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We find that Ld. CIT(A) had issued notices to the assessee through ITBA portal. However, on receiving no compliance drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and another [118 ITR 461], Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

4.

We are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Notice sent through ITBA Portal would not amount to service of notice as the assessee cannot be expected to visit its ITBA portal every day.

5.

Before us, counsel sought permission to file additional evidences stating that these evidences go to the root of the matter and could not have been filed during the assessment proceedings.

Page No. 2

(A.Y: 2015-16) M/s. A.K. Munshi Yojana 6. In the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the entire issue before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to avail the opportunity given to it.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th May, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →