DEVANAND GURMUKHDAS SOMANI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding lack of proper notice and opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) rejected their adjournment request and dismissed the appeal without proper notice. The Tribunal noted that after a specific notice, no further notice was issued before the appeal was disposed of.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The procedural fairness of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) was questioned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 04/09/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 28/03/2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee by way of an ex- parte order rejecting the request for adjournment moved by the Assessment Year2015-2016
Assessee. Therefore, the Learned Authorized for the Assessee prayed for setting aside of the impugned order.
Per Contra, Learned Department Representative supported the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessee was granted sufficient opportunity. Since, the Assessee failed to prosecute the appeal properly the Learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal.
We have considered the rival submissions recorded hereinabove and have perused the material on record. We find that the appeal was instituted by the Assessee on 05/04/2022. The Learned CIT(A) issued notice, dated 10/08/2023 and 18/03/2025 which was not responded by to the Assessee. However, the in response to notice, dated 25/06/2025 and 21/08/2025, the Assessee had sought adjournment. On perusal of record, we find that after the notice, dated 21/08/2025 (fixing the hearing on 28/08/2025), no further notice was issued to the Assessee and appeal was disposed by way of on 04/09/2025. Given the aforesaid, we deem it appropriate to accept the contention of the Assessee and grant the Assessee one more opportunity to prosecute the appeal properly before the Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order, dated 04/09/2025, passed by Learned CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the ground raised by the Assessee in appeal before the Learned CIT(A) afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is directed to make proper representation before the Learned CIT(A) and file submission and supporting documents without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is clarified that in case the Assessee fails to prosecute the appeal properly and/or enter appearance before the Learned CIT(A), the Learned CIT(A) would be at liberty to adjudicate the appeal on merits on the basis of material forming part of the record. In terms of the aforesaid Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. While all the other grounds are disposed as having being
2 Assessment Year2015-2016
rendered infructuous at this stage in view of the fact that we have set aside the order impugned.
In result, present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed
Order pronounced on 19.08.2026 (Dr. B.R.R. Kumar) Judicial Member
िदनांकDated :19.08.2026 अहमदाबाद Ahmedabad;HC.PS
3 Assessment Year2015-2016
आदेशक""ितिलिपअ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""यथ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.
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 Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026