SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders. While acknowledging the assessee's lack of diligence, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision on merits, citing principles of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that notices were not properly served and an opportunity of being heard was denied. The assessee also claimed a portion of the addition was wrongly treated as income.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities were justified due to non-appearance of the assessee, and if principles of natural justice require a fresh hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 911/JP/2019
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 08/05/2019 passed /s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2010-11. Following grounds have been taken by the assessee: “1. That the notice U/s 148 had not been served upon the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of this fact and caring to verify it resulting into gross miscarriage of justice.
2. That the notice of fixation of appeal was not served upon the appellant and despite this the ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order and deprived him of an opportunity of being heard.
2 ITA 911/JP/2019_ Gaurav Sharma Vs ITO 3. That out of the total addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- the ld AO wrongly treated the sum of Rs. 1,42,000/- gifted by the appellant’s father as income and the ld. CIT(A) has also not appreciated this fact.” 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic.
At the time of hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. From the record, we observe that the A.O. as well as the ld. CIT(A) had decided the case of the assessee ex parte and the matter may be restored back to the file of the A.O. The ld. DR has raised objection for remanding the matter and submitted that the assessee has not appeared either before the A.O. and before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his case, therefore, no opportunity should be given to the assessee and the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed with cost.
Having heard the contentions of the ld DR and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed either by the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A) ex parte. The A.O. has stated in his order that despite providing ample opportunities of hearing during assessment proceedings, the assessee did not attend before the undersigned nor even bothered to make any written compliance in response to the statutory notices/letters issued on various 3 ITA 911/JP/2019_ Gaurav Sharma Vs ITO dates. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had not appeared and thereafter the ld. CIT(A) passed order U/s 154 of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Even before the Tribunal, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. It was the bounded duty of the parties i.e. assessee as well as the Department to appear before the Revenue authorities at all stages. Since, this was the assessee’s appeal, therefore it was all the more important for the assessee to appear before A.O. as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee had not acted with due diligence. Nevertheless, the principles of natural justice demand that the lis between the parties should be decided on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we decide to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the record of the A.O. for deciding the issue afresh on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the assessee in the account of Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the A.O. in deciding the appeal on merits and without any sufficient reason, not to take further adjournments.
4 ITA 911/JP/2019_ Gaurav Sharma Vs ITO 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th October, 2020. Sd/- Sd/- ¼foØe flag ;kno½ ¼lanhi x®lkÃa½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29/10/2020 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Gaurav Sharma, Bharatpur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward-2, Bharatpur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 911/JP/2019) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026