SHRI VINOD KUMAR 31 A GOVIND VATIKA, LAXMAN DOONGRI JAIPUR C/O O.P. AGRAWAL, CA H-8, CHITRANJAN MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(3) JAIPUR, WARD-7(3) JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The appeals were to be heard and decided together.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed ex parte for non-appearance. The assessee sought another opportunity to present their case on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals ex parte without deciding on merits, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAOvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 86/JP/2017
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 07/10/2016 and 31/12/2018 respectively of ld. CIT(A)-35, New Delhi, Camp office at Jaipur and the ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur
2 ITA 86/JP/2017 & 281/JP/2019 Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs ITO arising from the assessment order passed U/s 143(3) and order passed by the A.O. U/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2010-11.
At the time of hearing, the AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee ex parte and therefore, the appeals of the assessee were not decided on merits. Hence, the ld AR has pleaded that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity of hearing before the ld. CIT(A) and the matter may be set aside to the record of the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld DR has vehemently opposed the prayer of the assessee and submitted that the several opportunities were given by the ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals, however, when none has appeared on behalf of the assessee then the appeals were dismissed ex parte.
I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. These two appeals are arising from the assessment orders and thereafter the A.O. passed an order U/s 154 of the Act thereby making additions on account of short-term capital gain. Both the appeals were decided by two separate ld. CIT(A) but ex parte. Since the appeals of the assessee are not decided on merits by a speaking order but were dismissed summarily for want of any appearance and explanation on 3 ITA 86/JP/2017 & 281/JP/2019 Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs ITO behalf of the assessee, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, these two matters are set aside to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for granting one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case. Since both the appeals are relating to one assessment order and therefore, both should be heard and decided being clubbed matter.
In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th September, 2019
Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 24th September, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward-7(3), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 86/JP/2017 & 281/JP/2019) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026