NEMATUNNISA NAZER HUSAIN JAFRI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 89 days. The assessment order was passed ex parte under Section 144 r.w.s. 147, and the first appellate order was also passed ex parte by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the ex parte assessment and appellate orders passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee are sustainable. The issue of condoning the delay in filing the appeal was also addressed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, VP:
This appeal by the assessee arises out of the ex parte order dated 05-07-2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2011-12.
This appeal is time barred by about 89 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating the reasons which led to the late filing. I am satisfied with the reasons so stated. Therefore, the delay is condoned and the instant appeal is admitted for disposal on merits.
Nematunnisa Nazer Husain Jafri
I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessment order in this case was passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act determining total income at Rs.27.03 lakh as against the returned income of Rs.3.37 lakh. The ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal by means of an ex parte order in the absence of the assessee. In view of the facts obtaining in the instant case where both the assessment as well as the first appellate orders have been passed in the absence of the assessee, and considering the request made on behalf of the assessee, I am of the opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the AO with a direction to pass the assessment order afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. I order accordingly. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to lead any fresh evidence in support of her case in the fresh assessment.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th December, 2023.
Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 19th December, 2023 Satish
Nematunnisa Nazer Husain Jafri
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. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026