DEEPAK MAGANLAL BHEDA ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4582/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Deepak Maganlal Bheda, the appellant, challenging an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in passing the order without adequately considering the submissions made, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the appellant was given opportunities to present his case but failed to comply, justifying the ex-parte decision. The Tribunal, prioritizing natural justice, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779854 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH PARWANI
• Assessee Lawyers: VAISHALI MORE
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Audi alteram partem

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4582/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2017-18) Deepak Maganlal Bheda 304, 3rd Floor, Usha Villa Society, Amrut Nagar, Ghatkopar (W) – 400086 PAN – AHPPB9980N Vs ITO, Ward – 27(1)(1) Vashi Rly Stn Bldg Navi Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vaishali More, CA Revenue by Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the A.Y 2017-18. 2. From the records, I noticed that the assessee was ex- parte before the AO and also before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has therefore raised ground No. 1 of appeal thereby challenging the order of Ld. cIT(A) in passing ex- parte order. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 4582/Mum/2025 Deepak Maganlal Bheda, Mumbai. 3. In this regard it was submitted by Ld. AR that Ld. CIT(A) had erred in passing ex-parte order without appreciating the fact that the submissions filed by the assessee and thus violated principles of natural justice. 4. On the other hand Ld. DR submitted that assessee was ex-parte before the AO and also before Ld. CIT(A). It was also submitted that no principle of natural justice has been violated as notices were served upon the assessee thereby giving him opportunity to put appearance and to file his submissions / documents in order to substantiate the grounds raised by him before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee failed to comply with the notices and therefore the appeal of the assessee was rightly dismissed. 5. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues and the contrary submissions made by the parties, I am of the view that since the assessee was ex-parte before both the revenue authorities, therefore considering the principles of natural justice and also keeping in view the doctrine of audi alteram partem, I set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of AO to decide the issues afresh. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise any ground not taken before Ld. CIT(A) or AO. Thereafter AO shall decide all the issues raised before him in accordance with the provisions of law. This ground raised by the assessee stands allowed in terms indicated above. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 4582/Mum/2025 Deepak Maganlal Bheda, Mumbai. 6. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law. 7. Since I have allowed ground No. 1 and restored the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the issues afresh in a de-novo assessment. Therefore other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic. 8. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/10/2025 Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 13/10/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 4582/Mum/2025 Deepak Maganlal Bheda, Mumbai. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "