LATA BALARAM GAIKWAD,MAHARASHTRA V. ITO WARD 3(5) KALYAN, MAHARASHTRA

ITA 6887/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Lata Balaram Gaikwad against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which had dismissed her appeal regarding an addition of Rs.3,11,86,365 as long-term capital gains income for the assessment year 2014-15. The dismissal was initially ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices by the assessee's representative. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not adequately represented and had not been informed of the proceedings, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314082 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPA HIRAY
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANT SHINKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Capital Gains; Non compliance

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 6887/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lata Balaram Gaikwad, 1, Matoshree,Sunita Colony, Tisgaon, Mumbai-421306 Vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Kalyan 2nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Mumbai-421301 PAN NO. AGKPG 1805 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Prashant Shinkar Revenue by : Ms. Deepa Hiray, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date of pronouncement : 05/05/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15, raising following grounds: 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in dismissing the appeal. Lata Balaram Gaikwad 2 ITA No. 6887/MUM/2024 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in dismissing the appeal and that too without even appreciating the facts and the circumstance of the case fully and properly. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in approving the action of the A.O. in making an addition of an amount of Rs.3,11,86,365/- as Long term capital gains income. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal at any time.” 2. At the threshold, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) was rendered ex-parte qua the assessee, owing to non-compliance with the notices issued by the first appellate authority. It is submitted that, in the appeal filed in Form No. 35 before the learned CIT(A), the email address of the Chartered Accountant representing the assessee was furnished for the purpose of official communication. However, the said Chartered Accountant, for reasons not disclosed, neither informed the assessee of the notices received nor filed any written submissions or representations before the appellate authority. Consequently, the assessee became aware of the non compliance of notices only upon its receipt of impugned order. It is further submitted that the assessee is now willing and prepared to submit a proper explanation on the issues in dispute and to participate fully in the proceedings before the appellate authority, should an opportunity be granted by restoring the matter. Lata Balaram Gaikwad 3 ITA No. 6887/MUM/2024 3. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is noted that, as per paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) had issued notices on 28.12.2020, 09.11.2023, 01.12.2023, and 08.12.2023. These notices, spanning a brief interval of approximately two months, elicited no response from the assessee, and the appellate order was consequently passed ex-parte. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that one further opportunity ought to be afforded to the assessee to present its case. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the said authority for de novo adjudication. The learned CIT(A) shall provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before deciding the matter afresh. It shall be incumbent upon the assessee to respond diligently to all notices issued, whether through email or by any other mode permissible under the provisions of the Act. The ground No. 2 of appeal is allowed and other grounds on merits are not adjudicated. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Lata Balaram Gaikwad 4 ITA No. 6887/MUM/2024 Mumbai; Dated: 05/05/2025 Disha Raut, Stenographer Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "