SEVANTILAL BHAICHAND SHAH,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 23(3)(6), MUMBAI

ITA 3761/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sevantilal Bhaichand Shah, a senior citizen, who appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The appellant challenged the order on the grounds that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his case, citing reasons such as lack of physical notice and his residence in Rajasthan post his wife's death. The ITAT noted the procedural requirement for a reasoned order on the merits of the dispute, even in the absence of the assessee's representation, referencing a similar case (Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani Vs. ITO). The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) to ensure the assessee could present his case effectively.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714482 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani Vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNALI CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT JHAVERI

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. 3761/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sevantilal Bhaichand Shah 2nd Floor, 43 Ramwadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – 400 002. PAN – AAEPS8062J Vs ITO, Ward – 23(3)(6) Room No. 616, 6th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Amit Jhaveri 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. 26.05.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without deciding the merits of the issue in dispute, however as per the provisions of Sec. 250(6) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on the merits of the issue in dispute, even in case of non representation on the part of the assessee as has been Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3761/Mum/2025 Sevantilal Bhaichand Shah, Mumbai. held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani Vs. ITO, in ITA No. 204/Mum/2024. 3. Apart from the above, Ld. AR submitted that assessee is a senior citizen and had filed his return in ITR-I and assessee does not have accountants to check income tax portal on regular basis and no copy of physical notice was ever served upon the assessee. It was also submitted that after the death of assessee’s wife Smt. Kanchanben Sevantilal Shah, the assessee spends most of his time in his home town in Rajasthan and thus assessee was unaware about the service of notice and therefore could not file submissions. 4. On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 5. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee we are of the view that since the assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Hence, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3761/Mum/2025 Sevantilal Bhaichand Shah, Mumbai. 6. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) 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. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 7. 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/-d /- Sd/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. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "