SHRI MAHESH MANOHAR PIMPALKUTE,NEW DELHI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, MALEGAON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee contended that they were not given adequate opportunity by the AO to respond to the assessment proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of hearing during the assessment and appellate 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 09-02-2023 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 2012-13.
I have heard the rival submissions 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.142(1) r.w.s.147 of the Act assessing total income at Rs.18,27,984/-. When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, the ld. CIT(A), at para 4.2 of the impugned order, noted that the appellant failed to avail any of the said opportunities through various notices issued on ITBA to furnish a reply in support of its case. He, therefore, presumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and eventually dismissed it ex parte qua the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that adequate opportunity of hearing was also not given by the AO inasmuch as the assessee could respond to the assessment proceedings only for once and thereafter, the assessment order came to be passed without affording further opportunity of hearing to explain the case. It was submitted that, given an opportunity, the assessee is now in a position to substantiate his claims with relevant evidence. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, 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. I order accordingly and direct him to frame the assessment afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to lead any fresh evidence in support of his point of view in the fresh assessment.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16th May, 2023.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026