LATE MADHUKAR H GANDHI L/H SUDHIR M GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the matter to his file. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee contended that the notice for hearing was never served and was addressed to a deceased person, violating natural justice.
What were the issues?
Whether the dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard was a violation of natural justice.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
आदेश / ORDER शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. The instant appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29th October 2012, passed by the learned
Late Madhukar H. Gandhi L/h Shri Sudhir M. Gandhi 2 Commissioner (Appeals)–19, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2006– 07.
The assessee is aggrieved by the ex–parte order passed by the first appellate authority dismissing the assessee’s appeal. The learned Counsel for the assessee has stated before us that the notice for hearing issued to the assessee was never served and as per the facts narrated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in para–2 of his order, the second notice of hearing was addressed to a dead person, hence, it returned unserved. It was, therefore, submitted that dismissal of assessee’s appeal without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard is in gross violation of natural justice. He, therefore, requested to restore the matter back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue on merits.
The learned Departmental Representative has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
Considering the submissions of the parties, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the issues raised by the assessee on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Late Madhukar H. Gandhi L/h Shri Sudhir M. Gandhi 3 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09.10.2015
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- 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