AJAY MALSHI DEDHIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4147/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 April 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHARI (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to comply with future notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee had submitted part submissions and requested further time, but the CIT(A) allegedly dismissed the appeal without considering these submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits and dismissing it for non-prosecution, despite partial submissions from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Hearing: 18/04/2024Pronounced: 23/04/2024

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 29/09/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 for the A.Y.2011-12.

2.

The first and foremost ground of assessee is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing exparte order without deciding the appeal on merits and dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution; and apart from that assessee has also challenged the addition of Rs.48,43,000/- made u/s.69A.

1.

Ajay Malshi Dedhia 3. Before us ld. Counsel submitted that assessee had submitted part submissions before the ld. CIT(A) vide letter dated 27/09/2023 and requested further time to submit written submissions. However, the ld. CIT(A) without even considering the submissions had dismissed the appeal exparte on the ground of non-prosecution. Thus, he submitted that in the interest of justice, matter should be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) be decided afresh.

4.

Ld. DR also does not have any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

5.

In view of the aforesaid facts that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed exparte on the ground that assessee has not filed any reply to notice of hearing dated 24/05/2023 and 22/09/2023. Ld. CIT(A) has incorporated following dates of hearing:- Date of hearing Time limit for Remarks notice furnishing written submission 05/03/2020 12/03/2020 Adjournment requested 22/02/2021 09/03/2021 Adjournment requested 31/08/2021 15/09/2021 Adjournment requested 24/05/2023 30/05/2023 No reply 22/09/2023 27/09/2023 No reply

5. However, nowhere ld. CIT (A) has acknowledged that assessee had filed written submissions on 27/09/2023 bearing acknowledgment No.322157861270923. In the said submission assessee had requested for further time to submit further details. However, without acknowledging the said submissions, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Thus, in the interest of justice, we agree with the prayer of the ld. Counsel that matter should be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and assessee is also directed to comply with the notices sent from office of the NFAC. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 23rd April, 2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →