SANJAY KESARWANI,PRAYAGRAJ vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) order was ex-parte. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals concerned quantum additions and a penalty for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10. The assessee argued that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without proper opportunity, and the CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment and appellate orders were passed without affording proper opportunity to the assessee, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for de-novo assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Tin Box Company v. CIT624 citing249 ITR 216 · 2001 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD “SMC”
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: Appeals captioned as & ITA.
No.78/Alld/2023 are filed by assessee against the quantum appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Allahabad, dated 23.10.2019 (AY. 2008-09) and Ld. NFAC order dated 01.12.2022 for AY. 2009-10 respectively; and ITA. No. 79/Alld/2023 is an appeal against the Ld. NFAC order dated 01.12.202 for AY. 2009-10 confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Srinivasan Charitable and Educational… vs ACIT, Central Coircle-2, TrichyChennai8 Nov 2024Remanded
Also relies on Tin Box Company v. CIT
The Tribunal found a gross violation of natural justice, similar to precedents where assessments were made in haste without proper opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for de n...
- Srinivasan Charitable and Educational… vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, TrichyChennai8 Nov 2024Remanded
Also relies on Tin Box Company v. CIT
The Tribunal held that there was a gross violation of natural justice due to the AO's haste and failure to provide proper opportunities and documents. The assessments were set aside and remanded back to the AO for de nov...
- Raman, Kancheepuram vs Assessing Officer, KancheepuramChennai30 Jul 2025Remanded
Also relies on Tin Box Company v. CIT
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to share any bank statement from 'Andhra Bank' with the assessee, and the...
- E 2596 Mutlur Primary Agnl Co-Op Credit… vs ITO Ward 2, CuddaloreChennai23 Jul 2025Remanded
Also relies on Tin Box Company v. CIT
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal to the ITAT due to the assessee's lack of digital literacy. It set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a ...
- Ponraj, Chennai vs ITO Non Corp. Ward 8(5), ChennaiChennai22 Jul 2025Remanded
Also relies on Tin Box Company v. CIT
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's financial and personal difficulties. Following the Supreme Court decision in Tin Box Company vs CIT, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order a...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
