RESOLUTE ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was due to the ex-parte nature of the lower appellate order and the lack of clarity on whether hearing notices were properly served on the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A), who affirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unsecured loans, other expenses, and depreciation. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) claimed to have given numerous opportunities but there was no proof of service of hearing notices on the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte was valid without proper proof of service of hearing notices to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for AY.2012-13 arises from the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad’s order dated 03-01-2017 passed in case No.0122/DCIT, Cir-3(1)/CIT(A)-3/15-16, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard learned departmental representative. Case file perused. 2. It transpires at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order affirming the Assessing Officer’s action inter alia adding un-secured loans followed Section 40(a)(ia), “other” expenses and depreciation’s disallowance involving varying sums of money; respectively has been passed ex-parte.
Learned departmental representative invited our attention to para 4, pg.3 of the CIT(A)’s order that he had afforded numerous opportunities to the assessee. We find that there is no indication in the said discussion as to whether the corresponding lower appellate hearing notices had been actually served on the assessee or not? Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the instant lis back to the CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication on merits within three effective opportunities of hearing.
This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th May, 2021
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026