RAMESH SIYARAM JAISWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PALGHAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the assessee's willingness to cooperate and the need for a just decision, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited a significant amount in bank accounts but did not file a return of income. The case was reopened, and despite multiple notices, the assessee failed to appear or submit any documents before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities were justified, and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM
O R D E R
Per N. K. Choudhry, JM:
The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.03.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner)’} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
In the instant case, the Assessee during the year under consideration though deposited the amount of Rs. 42,82,480/- in its two accounts maintained with SBI, however did not file any return of income as alleged. Therefore the case of the Assessee was re- opened u/s 147 of the Act and notice dated 19.02.2020 u/s 148 of the Act was issued. In compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the Assessee neither filed its return of income nor submitted any submission in this regard. Subsequently the assessing officer issued various statutory notices dated 13.10.2020, 04.03.2021, 13.03.2021 and 25.05.2021 fixing the case for submission of documents and return of income for year under consideration. However, the Assessee on the dates fixed also neither appeared nor filed any written reply, therefore final show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act was also issued, which also remained un-complied with. In the compelling circumstances, the Assessing Officer on the basis material available on record computed the income of the Assessee by making addition of Rs. 42,82,480/- as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act.
The Assessee being aggrieved preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who by impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against which the Assessee is an appeal before Tribunal. I observe that the Ld. Commissioner as well issued various 2 Ramesh Siyaram Jaiswal notices on dated 10-03-2022, 22-03-2022, 22-04-2022 and 1-03- 2023, however the Assessee neither filled any submission/document nor sought any adjournment. Therefore, in the constrained circumstance, the impugned order was passed. The Ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted that the Assessee was at fault due to certain circumstances, for not appearing before the authority below. However now he is willing to give undertaking to join the assessment proceedings in case the Assessee is given an opportunity and may be subjected to any reasonable cost. Considering, the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, specifically to the effect that both the orders passed by the authority below are ex-parte and not on merit because of non appearance and non-filling any reply/submission/document by the Assessee and as the Ld. AR made honest admission/statement, therefore I for the just and proper decision of the case and for the ends of justice but subject to deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in National Relief Fund within 30 days of receipt of this order, am inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the assessing officer for decision afresh, suffice, to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, hence the case is remanded accordingly.
3.1 The Assessee is also directed to appear as and when would be required and file the relevant document(s) which would be needed by the assessing officer for proper and real adjudication of the case. Ramesh Siyaram Jaiswal 4. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2023.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026