AI Insights
The case involves an appeal by Rita Ashok Parekh against the order of the CIT(A), which was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response despite four opportunities given. The primary issue in the appeal was the denial of deduction claimed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the grounds on merits and had not provided a reasoned order. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive re-evaluation, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136516 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
11-09-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
11-09-2023
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Appeal Filed On
17-05-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) I.T.A. No. 1777/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Rita Ashok Parekh 83B Meher Apartments Anstey Road, Off Altamount Road Mumbai-400 026. APN : AAFPP8409D Vs. ACIT, Circle-25(3) Room No. 232 2 nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan,C-41 to C-43 G Block, Babdra Kurla Complex, Bandra-E Mumba-400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Miss Hinal Shah Department by Smt. Mahita Nair Date of Hearing 12.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 22-03- 2023 passed by Ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 2. Before us, the Ld A.R moved an application seeking adjournment. However, on a perusal of the order passed by Ld CIT(A), we notice that the Ld CIT(A) was constrained to pass the order ex-parte, since the assessee did not responded to him despite giving four opportunities. The issue urged on merits was denial of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the AO observing that the assessee could not rebut the same during appellate proceedings. Hence we reject the adjournment request and proceed to dispose of the appeal. Rita Ashok Parekh 2 3. Since the assessee did not appear before Ld CIT(A), there was no occasion available to the assessee to make her submissions. Hence we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in stating that the assessee did not rebut the assessment order. In any case, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds urged on merits by a reasoned order. In fact, the assessee has raised a ground before the Tribunal with regard to violation of principle of natural justice. Hence, on a conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that all the issues urged before the Tribunal need to be restored to the file of the Ld CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh. 4. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of Ld CIT(A). We also direct the assessee to fully co- operate with Ld CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal by furnishing all required information and explanation. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Ld CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in on 12.09.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Narender Kumar Choudhry) (B.R. Baskaran) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai.; Dated : 12/09/2023 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai. Rita Ashok Parekh 3 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai
Mehul