RAJESH KUMAR,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO WARD DALHOUSIE, HIMACHAL PRADESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 869/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was granted as a final opportunity, subject to the assessee paying costs and cooperating fully.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), leading to ex parte assessment and appellate orders. The assessee then approached the ITAT, citing inadvertent reasons for non-compliance and requesting a final opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be denied an opportunity to present their case due to past non-compliance, and if so, under what conditions. The principles of natural justice versus procedural discipline were considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “बी” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल, लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.869/Chd/ 2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar बनाम The ITO 336 Thulel, Balana Sihunta, Ward Dalhousie Chamba, Himachal Pradesh-176304 Himachal Pradesh, -176207 �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: HZHPK4829Q अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate for Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16/07/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20/07/2026 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making various additions on account of unexplained bank credits and contractual receipts. 2. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The appellate authority issued various statutory notices fixing the appeal for hearing on different dates. However, none of the notices was complied with by the assessee and no written submissions or supporting evidences were furnished. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), after recording the repeated defaults on the part of the assessee, proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not effectively represent his case before either of the lower authorities due to inadvertent and bona fide reasons. It was contended that the additions have been made without proper appreciation of the factual matrix and without examining the documentary evidence which the assessee is now in a position to produce.

5.1 It was vehemently argued that the assessee should not be denied an opportunity of substantiating his claim merely because of earlier non- appearance. The Ld. AR fairly undertook that if one final opportunity is granted, the assessee shall appear before the Assessing Officer on every date of hearing, file all requisite documentary evidence and extend full cooperation for expeditious completion of the proceedings. It was, therefore, prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer in the interest of substantial justice.

6.

Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted that sufficient opportunities had been granted both during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings. Despite repeated notices, the assessee failed to appear or furnish any explanation. Therefore, no interference with the impugned order was called for.

6.1 However, the Ld. DR fairly submitted that if the Bench is inclined to restore the matter, appropriate conditions may be imposed upon the assessee so that the proceedings are not delayed again.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessment was completed ex parte and that the first appellate authority also proceeded to decide the appeal ex parte owing to the continuous non-compliance on the part of the assessee. The record further reveals that despite issuance of several opportunities, the assessee did not effectively participate before the

3 lower authorities. Thus, the conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated and deserves to be deprecated.

7.1 At the same time, it is equally well settled that the objective of adjudication is to determine the correct taxable income after affording adequate opportunity to both sides. The principles of natural justice require that a litigant should ordinarily be afforded one effective opportunity to substantiate his case, particularly when the matter can be decided on the basis of documentary evidence.

7.2 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, and balancing the requirement of procedural discipline with the larger interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the Assessing Officer. However, the repeated failure of the assessee to respond before the authorities below has resulted in unnecessary consumption of judicial and departmental time. Therefore, while granting one more opportunity, we consider it appropriate to impose costs.

7.3 Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This restoration shall, however, be subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit costs of Rs.3,000/- with the Poor Patient Relief Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, within 30 days from the receipt of this order and shall furnish proof of such deposit before the Assessing Officer at the first available opportunity. The assessee is further directed to appear before the Assessing Officer as and when called upon, file all documentary evidence in support of his claim, and extend full cooperation in the completion of the assessment proceedings. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be sought. In case of any failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to decide the matter in accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record, without granting any further indulgence. With these

4 directions, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 20/07/2026 Sd/- Sd/- मनोज कुमार अ�वाल लिलत कुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद�/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद� /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR-9A CHANDIGARH

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →