SHRI SANJEET C/O- KALANI & CO. CA, 5TH FLOOR, MILESTONE BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR TURN, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(2), ALWAR, ALWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have ensured proper service of notice, possibly through an I.T. Inspector, before passing an ex parte order. The ex parte order was set aside as it was passed without considering the merits of the additions.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte due to non-appearance. The CIT(A) cited incomplete address and postal confirmation of non-delivery. However, the assessee received the CIT(A)'s order at the same address, indicating the address was not entirely incomplete.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without ensuring proper service of notice and without considering the merits of the case.
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 RAMESH C SHARMAvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 722/JP/2019
ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ex parte order of ld.CIT(A), Alwar dated 29/03/2019 for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the matter of order passed U/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).
I have heard the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the ld. CIT(A) has 2 ITA 722/JP/2019 Sh. Sanjeet Vs ITO dismissed the appeal by observing that no one has attended on behalf of the assessee in spite of issue of notice on 06/03/2019 and 26/03/2019. The ld. CIT(A) has also stated that the postal department has confirmed that the address was incomplete. The ld. AR of the assessee has pointed out that the address of the assessee was complete in so far as the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 29/03/2019 posted at the same address was received by the assessee against which the assessee has filed this appeal. Under these facts and circumstances, the allegation of the ld. CIT(A) was not correct. Considering the fact that the notice was not served by the postal department, the ld. CIT(A) should have tried to serve the same through I.T. Inspector, however, without serving the same, the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order even without considering the merit of the additions. As per the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has to pass an order stating the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Therefore, in the substantial interest of justice, I set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and the matter is restored back to him for deciding the matter afresh after giving due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I direct accordingly.
3 ITA 722/JP/2019 Sh. Sanjeet Vs ITO 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2019
Sd/- ¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½ (RAMESH C SHARMA) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22nd July, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellants- Shri Sanjeet, Gurgaon (Haryana). 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward 2(2), Alwar. 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. 722/JP/2019) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
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 →- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- 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