SANDESH VIJAY GHORPADE,THANE vs. ITO, WARD 21(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4541/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2015-16Bench: JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, HON'BLE (President), SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant 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 assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) due to an incorrect address and unreceived email notices. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal challenging an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities because notices were sent to an old address and by email which were not noticed. The assessee contended that additions were made due to misinterpretation of facts.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the tax authorities due to non-receipt of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, HON’BLE& SHRI B.R. BASKARAN

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi
For Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad, Sr.AR
Hearing: 14/05/2024Pronounced: 14/05/2024

PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 16/10/2023 passed by ld.CIT(A),NFAC,Delhi and it relates to the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

We notice that the ld.CIT(A) was constrained to pass an ex-parte order, since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by CIT(A). The ld.A.R of the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has sent the notices by email,but they were omitted to be noticed by the assessee and hence, the assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, he prayed that the assessee may be provided with an opportunity to present his case properly before Tax Authorities. He submitted that additions have been made by the Assessing Officer due to misinterpretation of facts and hence, it would be helpful to the assessee, if the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer.

3.

The ld. D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) and if required, the ld. CIT(A) will call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the submissions made by the assessee before Ld CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A). The assessee has filed an affidavit before the Tribunal, wherein it is stated that he has shifted his residence to Thane, but the notices were sent by the Assessing Officer to his old address located at Byculla. Accordingly, it is stated thatthe assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer. With regard to the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) through email, it is stated that they were omitted to be noticed by the assessee. According to Ld A.R, the impugned additions have been made due to mis- interpretation of facts. Under these set of facts, in the interests of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by ld. CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating themafreshdul.We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the ld. CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →