METAL TRADING,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for non-appearance to be genuine and bonafide. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) due to a genuine reason of not receiving notices at their new address after shifting their office. The ex-parte order was only brought to their notice through a demand notice from the bank.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside due to the assessee's inability to attend the hearing due to non-receipt of notices.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Vadodara arising out of the order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1) under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee could not attain the hearing and the appeal has been decided on the basis of materials available on record before the Learned - 2 - Metal Trading-vs-ITO Asst. Year – 2009-10 CIT(A). It was further pointed out by the Learned Counsel that due to shifting of office to a new premise after 10 months from the filing of the said appeal, the notices issued by the Learned CIT(A) has not been received by the assessee since it was sent to the old address. The Learned AR further submits that inadvertently the new address was not informed to the Revenue authorities which was genuinely skipped from their mind due to passage of time. The ex-parte order passed by the Learned CIT(A) made known to the assessee by their bankers by the issuance of notices u/s 226(3) of the Act. The Learned AR further submitted an affidavit where the entire facts has been stated faithfully on oath; supporting documents thereof were also annexed to the said affidavit filed before us. Hence she prays for setting aside the issue to the Learned CIT(A). The Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee also submitted a copy of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of CIT-vs-Simit P. Sheth on the merit of the matter. We, however, make it clear that we are not dealing with the merit of the matter hence the Learned CIT(A) is at liberty to consider the said judgment while deciding the matter on merit. On the other hand, the Learned DR has not raised any serious objection to such contention made by the Learned AR.
We have heard the rival submissions made by the parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record including the affidavit dated 19.08.2019 affirmed by the assessee. We are satisfied with the statements made by the assessee in his affidavit and also to this fact that the Learned AO by and under the notice u/s 226(3) of the Act dated 24.01.2018 directed the assessee to make payment of a sum of Rs.14,71,170/-, in default, the assessee shall be deemed to be an assessee in default. Hence real urgency exists in the matter to be disposed of by the Learned CIT(A) immediately. It is needless to mention that the said notice dated 24.01.2018 u/s 226(3) of the Act issued by the Learned AO is annexed to the said affidavit filed before us by the Learned AR. Since we find that the plea taken by the assessee for not appearing before the Learned CIT(A) is genuine and bonafide, for the ends of justice, we are inclined to set - 3 - Metal Trading-vs-ITO Asst. Year – 2009-10 aside the issue to the file of the Learned CIT(A). In that view of the matter, we set aside the issue to the file of the Learned CIT(A) with a further direction upon him to render an opportunity of being heard to the assessee within 4 weeks from the date of passing of this order by us and to finalize the issue within 4 weeks thereafter. The Learned CIT(A) is further directed to consider the materials available on record including the evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the appeal before him. We further make it clear, that the assessee will also not pray for any unnecessary adjournment before the Learned CIT(A) and will also corporate with the first appellate authority. Hence, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026