DHINGALMAL MINES & MINERALS,BHILWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, BHILWARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1037/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 August 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment order and first appellate order were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's inability to represent itself. The assessment was reopened for unexplained source of investment in an immovable property.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to represent its case before the departmental authorities, leading to ex-parte orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CA (Physical), Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR (Physical)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1037/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year – 2016-17) Dhingalmal Mines & Minerals Income Tax Officer A-454, Moti Babaji ke Piche, Ward-1, Bhilwara Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar, Bhilwara-311001 PAN No. AALFD 4535 E Assessee by Shri Amit Kothari, CA (Physical) Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR (Physical) Revenue by Date of Hearing 05 / 08 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 07 / 08 / 2026. ORDER PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: The present appeal by the assessee arises out of order dated 24.09.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that for unavoidable circumstances, the assessee was unable to represent either in course of assessment proceedings or in the first appellate proceedings. Therefore, he submitted, both the assessment order and order of the First Appellate Authority were passed ex-parte. He submitted, since the assessee did not get a fair

2 ITA No. 1037/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2016-17 opportunity to represent itself before the Departmental Authorities, issues arising in the appeal may be restored back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

3.

Ld. Departmental Representative did not express any objection with regard to restoration of issues for de novo adjudication.

4.

Having considered rival submissions and perused materials on record, we find that assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the reasoning that in the year under consideration, though, the assessee had purchased an immovable property for consideration of Rs. 70,21,000/-. However, source of investment remained unexplained. It is observed, in course of assessment proceeding, the assessee for whatever may the reason, did not comply with the statutory notice. Hence, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Situation remained identical before the First Appellate Authority as appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to absence of the assessee.

5.

As discussed earlier, disputed addition is only on account of failure on the part of the assessee to explain the source of investment, which is purely a factual issue and depends upon the documentary evidences to be brought on record by

3 ITA No. 1037/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2016-17 the assessee. Since the assessee did not get any opportunity to do so either before the Assessing Officer or before the First Appellate Authority, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority and restore the issues arising in the appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

We direct the assessee to comply with the notices to be issued by the Assessing Officer and cooperate in finalization of the proceedings.

7.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 07/08/2026. Nimisha, Sr. PS True Copy

Copies to :

4 ITA No. 1037/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2016-17 (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →