SAMIDHA PURUSHOTTAM POTPHODE,MUMBAI V. PCIT, MUMBAI

ITA 3781/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Samidha Purushottam Potphode against an order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention in the appeal was the alleged denial of a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee by the PCIT. The tribunal noted that the notice for the hearing was issued on 28.03.2025, and due to the proximity of the hearing date to a long weekend and a public holiday, the time provided to the assessee was insufficient. The tribunal found that the PCIT had not adequately considered the assessee's request for an adjournment, leading to an ex-parte order which deprived the assessee of a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714487 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNALI CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: PARAG POTPHODE
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3781/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Samidha Purushottam Potphode 28 First Floor, Potphode Mansion, 12th lane, Kamathipura, Mumbai PAN – BHHPP7460A Vs PCIT – 20 Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Parag Potphode Respondent by Shri Swapnali Choudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 31.03.2025 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Ld. PCIT for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. First of all we are taking up Ground No. 2 to 3 which are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. PCIT in not providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee while passing the impugned order. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3781/Mum/2025 Samidha Purushottam Potphode, Mumbai. 3. In this regard, we have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 4. From the records, we noticed that before passing the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act, Ld. PCIT had issued notice dated 28.03.2025 calling upon the assessee to file its reply along with supporting documents and had fixed the matter on 31.03.2025 at 12 pm. In this regard assessee had moved an application for seeking adjournment which is at paper book page No. 78 & 79. However, Ld. PCIT while ignoring the said application for seeking adjournment had passed the ex-parte order on 31.03.2025, thereby depriving the opportunity of proper hearing to the assessee. 5. We also noticed that the show cause notice was signed by the Ld. PCIT on 28.03.2025 i.e Friday at 04.40 pm and was sent through mail. It is important to mention here that as per calendar of March 2025, the days in between dates i.e 29, 30 & 31 March 2025 were bank holidays and it was a long weekend, 30.03.2025 was also bank holiday on account of “Ramzan Eid”. Thus in our view the time granted to the assessee was not sufficient for filing reply along with documentary evidences. The purpose of providing ‘reasonable opportunity of hearing’ is not a ‘mere formality’ and it has to be followed in letter and spirit by the quasi judicial authorities. Therefore in our view, Ld. PCIT has passed the impugned order in a hurriedly manner without providing ‘reasonable opportunity’ of hearing to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3781/Mum/2025 Samidha Purushottam Potphode, Mumbai. 6. Be that as it may, keeping in view the above position in our mind, we are inclined to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. PCIT for fresh adjudication after considering the reply / documents filed by the assessee and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. 7. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. PCIT shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. PCIT independently in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/08/2025 Sd/- C Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (ACCOUNTAMT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 05/08/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3781/Mum/2025 Samidha Purushottam Potphode, Mumbai. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "