ARTISAN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 18(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the change of address and the assessee's inability to attend. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity to present its case after intimating a change of address.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was bad in law due to lack of opportunity to the assessee and failure to consider change of address.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-29, Mumbai dated 16/08/2011 pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised two substantive grounds of appeal. The assessee has also subsequently revised its grounds of appeal, inter-alia, claimed that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law as the CIT(A) erred in not providing opportunity to the assessee to present the case before him.
2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that when the case was first fixed for hearing, on 1/10/2010 the Ld. AR of the assessee vide a letter dated 30/09/2010 filed a written submission. The case was adjourned to 21/04/2011, on which date the case was again adjourned. It is the case of the Ld. Counsel that since the assessee had closed down its business, therefore, the CIT(A) was intimated with the change of address. Ld. Counsel concluded by saying that without considering the changed address the CIT(A) passed an ex- parte order. Ld. Counsel prayed for the restoration of the appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR fairly conceded to this.
3. We have carefully gone through the contents of the order of the first appellate authority. We find that it is an ex-parte order. Though the assessee’s representative did not appear and filed a written submission, but thereafter the assessee could not attend the appellate proceedings. Though the change in address was intimated to the CIT(A) but the same has not been considered. In the interest of justice and fair-play, in our considered opinion the assessee must get an opportunity to defend its case. We accordingly restore this appeal to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after giving reasonable and fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee agreed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 24/02/2016 without notice. We, therefore, direct the assessee to attend the appellate proceedings on 24/02/2016.
The appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026