SONESH DEDHIA, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3131/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Sonesh Dedhia, the appellant, who challenged the order of the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal regarding a penalty of Rs.8,32,900 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution as the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in CIT(A) Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on its merits and thus remanded the case back for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124006 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT(A) Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (38 ITD 320)(Del)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘G’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 3131/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2-13-14) Sonesh Dedhia H/901, 9 th Floor Kukreja Palace Ghatkopar East Mumbai-400 077. PAN : AAAPD4908L Vs. ITO-27(3)(3) Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Om Kandalkar Department by Ms. Neerja Sharma Date of Hearing 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 14.02.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution. 2. We heard both the parties and perused the record. The assessee has preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the penalty of Rs.8,32,900/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The learned CIT(A) issued notices on four occasions to the assessee, but there was no reply from the assessee. Accordingly the learned CIT(A), placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of the learned CIT(A) Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (38 ITD 320)(Del), dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Sonesh Dedhia 2 3. We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the assessee did not furnish any written submission before him, i.e., the Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits. Hence, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case before the learned CIT(A) properly so that the Ld CIT(A) could adjudicate the grounds on merits. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh on merits, after affording opportunity of being head to the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 14.2.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (B.R. BASAKARAN) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai; Dated : 14/02/2023 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai