DEEPALI PRAMOD REDIJ,DADAR MUMBAI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

ITA 4739/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Deepali Pramod Redij against the order of the CIT(A), which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte due to the absence of the assessee at the hearing, despite multiple notices. However, it was later found that the notices were not effectively served, leading to the assessee's inability to present her case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of an effective hearing as a fundamental principle of natural justice and thus set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case for a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470236 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250; 2(A)

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4739/MUM/2024 (A.Y: 2017-18) Deepali Pramod Redij 10/B Rajgiri Court, Maharashtra – 400 014 PAN: ABZPR0121K Vs. NFAC Delhi /ITO Ward 42(2)(2) Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : None Department Represented by : Ms. Smitha V. Nair, Ld. DR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 06.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2025 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 19.08.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) ITA No. 4739/Mum/2024 Deepali Pramod Redij Page | 2 has dismissed the appeal ex parte as despite services of notice, the assessee failed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. From the perusal of order, it is seen that the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were never received or served upon the assessee and as such they could not present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) who proceeded ex parte and decided the appeal on merit without giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and as such the assessee was prevented from presenting its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and liable to be set aside. The Ld. DR on the other hand supported the judgment of the Ld. CIT(A) stating that there is no merit in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. Section 250 sub section 2(a) of \"the Act\" provides as under: “Section 250 (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal: - a. The appellant, either in person or by an authorised representative;” ITA No. 4739/Mum/2024 Deepali Pramod Redij Page | 3 4. It is evident from the provision that the hearing to be given is not a formality but an effective hearing is sine qua non for the purpose of upholding the principal of natural justice. We have examined the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) who has observed as under: - “The details of opportunities of being heard provided to the assessee are tabulated below for ready reference: Sr. No. Date of Notice sent Compliance Date Remarks 1 01.06.2023 - Enablement of Communication Window. No response from the appellant. 2. 24.04.2024 06.05.2024 No response from the appellant. 3. 10.06.2024 18.06.2024 No response from the appellant. 4. 27.06.2024 11.07.2024 No response from the appellant. 5. 06.08.2024 16.08.2024 No response from the appellant. 5. It is thus evident from the contents of the impugned order extracted above that no effective opportunity of hearing has been given and there is no proof that the notice sent on various dates were duly served or brought to the notice of the appellant/assessee. 6. For these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that matter needs to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for giving effective hearing to the ITA No. 4739/Mum/2024 Deepali Pramod Redij Page | 4 assessee who shall present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) within 60 days. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.01.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (B R BASKARAN) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai / Dated 01.01.2025 Dhananjay, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "