INDERJEETKAUR BALVINDERSINGH KOHLI,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 1684/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Inderjeetkumar Balvindersingh Kohli, the assessee, who appealed against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was the assessee's absence during the proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which he claimed prevented him from substantiating his claims. The Departmental Representative argued that sufficient opportunities were provided. The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's non-participation and the impact of the pandemic, decided to restore the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33503 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNNY KACHHWAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY SHAH
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1684/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Inderjeetkumar Balvindersingh Kohli A 101, Aster Tower, Film City Road, Malad East, Mumbai – 400097. Vs. ITO – 30(1)(5) Mumbai. PAN/GIR No. AEZPK8636B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Shah Revenue by Shri Sunny Kachhwaha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.01.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 06.02.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. At the very outset, I noticed that assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(A) and on this aspect Ld. AR submitted that because of Covid-19 period the assessee could not appear and participate in the proceedings before the Ld. 2 ITA No. 1684/Mum/2024 Indrajeet Kumar, Mumbai CIT(A) and because of this reason the assessee could not substantiate his claim. Whereas on the contrary, Ld. DR submitted that sufficient and proper opportunity were granted to the assessee but still assessee could not substantiate his claim and thus relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 3. After having heard counsels for both the parties and having gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. I found that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee since the year 2020 to till year 2024 and the details of which are already mentioned in para 4 of the order of CIT(A). The maxim ‘Vigilantbus, non dormientibus, jurasubventiunt’ i.e ‘the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleeps over their rights’ is applicable in this case. 4. Be that as it may, In my view the interest of justice would be met in case the lis between the parties be decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, considering the above factual and legal position the Bench feels that the ends of justice would be met only if the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh and the rights of the revenue would not be prejudice. In case proper and sufficient opportunity is not given to the asessee then in that eventuality the rights of the assessee shall be prejudice. 3 ITA No. 1684/Mum/2024 Indrajeet Kumar, Mumbai However, for the lethargic and negligent action on the part of the assessee, a cost of Rs. 2000 is imposed on the assessee and the same shall be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the CIT(A) for proof and thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings and the appeal of the assessee is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.01.2025. (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 22/01/2025 4 ITA No. 1684/Mum/2024 Indrajeet Kumar, Mumbai KRK, PS आदेश की \bितिलिप अ\u000eेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\f / The Appellant 2. \r\u000eथ\f / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0019 / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु\u0019(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय \rितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स\u000eािपत \rित //True Copy// 1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई / ITAT, Mumbai "