RAJARAM VYANKTESH POGUL,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessment order and the first appellate order were both passed ex parte, meaning in the absence of the assessee. The assessee's appeal arose from an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether ex parte orders passed by the revenue authorities without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee are sustainable. The need for a fair hearing in assessment proceedings.
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 02-05-2023 passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2011-12.
I have heard both the sides and gone through 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.17,78,500/-. The ld. CIT(A) also passed 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, 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 his case in the fresh assessment.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26th July, 2023.
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 Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026