VIVEK VASANT TAWDE , MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1421/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1599 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MEENA
• Section: 54F; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1421/Mum./2024 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Vivek Vasant Tawde, 5/6 Vaishali APTS., MTNL Lane, Agar Bazar Dadar (W) Mumbai-400028. PAN No. : AAGPT 0544 E .......... Appellant v/s DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Room No. 563B, 5 th floor, Aayakar Bahavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. .......... Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Surendra Meena, DR Date of Hearing – 10/06/2024 Date of Order – 18/06/2024 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 04/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18. ITA No. 1421/Mum/2024 Vivek Vasant Tawde. 2 2. In the interest of justice, the slight delay of 23 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following ground:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and especially in law, the AO & Ld CIT (A) has erred by disallowing deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- being investment in residential house and further erred in disallowing the benefit of Sec. 54F itself based on incorrect facts without further verifying the same.” 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue raised by the assessee, in the present appeal, pertains to denial of exemption under section 54F of the Act. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Even in the present appeal before us, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the service of notice. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. Accordingly, the sole ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1421/Mum/2024 Vivek Vasant Tawde. 3 5. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/06/2024 SD/- B R BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 18/06/2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Rahul Sharma Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai