TEMPO INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, (1)(3)(3), , MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not consider details furnished by the assessee. While the assessee cited Covid-19 for non-compliance with CIT(A) notices, the last notice was issued post-Covid. The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of ₹2,000.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order as the assessee did not comply with notices, and the Assessing Officer also passed a best judgment assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities properly considered the evidence submitted by the assessee and whether the ex-parte assessment orders were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’ble, & Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’ble
Per B R Baskaran, Accountant Member:
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 15.10.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and it relates to A.Y. 2017- 18. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of profit from business and also the addition of cash credit made by the Assessing Officer.
Tempo Instruments Private Limited
At the outset, it is noticed that the learned CIT(A) was constrained to pass the order exparte, since the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by him. We also noticed that the Assessing Officer has also passed the order u/s. 144 of the Act to the best of his judgment.
The learned AR submitted that that the assessee had submitted the details that were called for by the Assessing Officer on five occasions. However, the Assessing Officer has passed the order without considering those details. He submitted that the assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) as they were issued during the Covid period. Accordingly, he prayed that all the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudicating them afresh.
The learned DR however, submitted that the learned CIT(A) had issued five notices, out of which the last notice was issued on 05.07.2023, but the assessee did not respond to the same also.
We heard the rival contentions and perused record. We noticed that the Assessing Officer himself records that the assessee had furnished partial details on five occasions. However, we noticed that the Assessing Officer did not consider those details while finalizing the assessment order. Before the learned CIT(A) the assessee did not appear, since the notices were issued during the Covid period. However, as pointed out by the learned DR, the last notice issued by the CIT(A) was after Covid period and the assessee did not furnish any credible explanation for not complying with the same. Since both the tax authorities have not considered the evidences furnished by the assessee, we are of the view that all the issues contested by the assessee needs to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining them afresh. However, the same will be at a cost. Accordingly, we impose a cost of ₹2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) on the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit
Tempo Instruments Private Limited of the Income Tax Department within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of the above cost, we set aside the assessment order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudicating them afresh. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Assessing Officer for expeditious disposal of the appeal.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th May, 2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026