K.UTTAMLAL & COMPANY, MUMBAI V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 13(2)-MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 844/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5385 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 13(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.844/Mum/2022 (Asse ssment Year :2011-12) K. Uttamlal & Company 144C, Mittal Court Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Maharashtra Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 13(2) Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Rd, New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAIFK9976H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sunil Hirawat Revenue by Shri Tejender Pal Singh Date of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement 20/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.844/Mum/2022 for A.Y.2011-12 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in appeal No.CIT(A) Mumbai- 28/10864/2014-15 dated 27/10/2021 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 31/01/2014 by the ld. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-13(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). ITA No.844/Mum/2022 M/s. K.Uttamlal & Company 2 2. At the outset, we find that the ld. CIT(A) had passed an exparte order. In the order of the ld. CIT(A) it has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the assessee on five different dates. The ld. AR before us stated that none of the notices were served on the assessee and moreover, these notices were issued by NFAC wherein on the scheduled dates notices could be issued only in electronic mode by way of e-mail. It was pointed out by the ld. AR that the e-mail ID of the assessee company was not mentioned in form No.35. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) could not have issued notices to the assessee in e-mail. 3. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the ld. CIT(A) had passed a very cryptic order in four lines, we deem it fit to restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. We direct the ld. CIT(A) to dispose off this appeal within a reasonable time frame and not beyond 31/12/2022. The assessee is also directed not to seek any adjournment before the ld. CIT(A) except due to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 20/07/2022. Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) Sd/- (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 20/07/2022 KARUNA, sr.ps ITA No.844/Mum/2022 M/s. K.Uttamlal & Company 3 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary / Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy//