OMPATI CHOUDHARY C/O M/S. THAKUR GUPTA AND ASSOCIATES 29, SANGRAM COLONY, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR-302001,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 (2), JAIPUR, WARD-4(2), JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the appeal was not decided on merits by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present her case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against an addition of Rs 13,91,800/- for AY 2010-11 was confirmed by the CIT(A) ex-parte. The assessee sought adjournment before the ITAT, citing ongoing written submissions.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order was passed on merits, and if not, whether the assessee should be granted another 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, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2019
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 cuke Smt. Ompati Choudhary, ITO, Vs. B-98, Nehru Nagar Panipech, Ward 4(2), Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADQPC3679L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 26/08/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 27/08/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 11.12.2018 confirming the addition of Rs 13,91,800/- as made by the Assessing officer for Assessment Year 2010-11 in terms of assessment order passed u/s 147 r/w 144 of the Act.
The hearing of the matter was scheduled for today through video conferencing in view of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic situation in the country. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, an adjournment application dated 25.08.2020 was received by the Registry which was signed by the A/R on behalf of the assessee stating that the written submissions are being prepared and the matter may be adjourned for atleast 20 days. Smt. Ompati Choudhary, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Jaipur 3. The ld. DR is heard who has drawn our reference to the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that on as many as three occasions, opportunity has been provided by the ld CIT(A), however, no one had attended the hearing and no written submissions were filed and the matter was accordingly decided by the ld CIT(A). It was further submitted that even before the Tribunal, the matter has been listed in the past, however, the authorized representative has sought adjournment from time to time and even today, when the matter was listed for hearing, an adjournment has been sought. It was accordingly submitted that more than adequate opportunity has been provided by the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal, no useful purpose would be served in providing further opportunity to the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and purused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing officer has passed the impugned order dated 25.12.2017 u/s 147 r/w 144 of the Act whereby addition of Rs 13,91,800/- has been made by the Assessing officer towards unexplained deposits in the bank account. Thereafter, the assessee moved an appeal before the ld CIT(A) and the matter has been listed for hearing on couple of occasions however there has been no compliance on part of the assessee and the matter has been decided ex-parte by the ld CIT(A). However, the fact of the matter is that the appeal has not been decided on merits and in absence of findings of the ld CIT(A), no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the matter any further, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to put forward her contentions and submissions which shall be decided on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Smt. Ompati Choudhary, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Jaipur Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/08/2020.
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 →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Harinder Singh Rawat vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026