LALIT GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SAMANA AT PATIALA, PATIALA, PUNJAB

PDF · subscribers
ITA 105/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 July 2026AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the assessee deserved one more opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against orders of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2010-11. The appeals involved issues related to ex-parte assessment, reassessment proceedings, territorial jurisdiction, and additions under Section 68, as well as penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of ex-parte assessment and reassessment proceedings due to alleged non-service of notices and lack of territorial jurisdiction, as well as the correctness of additions and penalty imposed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &, Shri Ashok Goyal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Prabodh Sharma, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Hearing: 25.06.2026Pronounced: 06.07.2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 84 & 105/CHD/2026 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Lalit Goyal, The ITO, Tejinder Garg &Co. C.A.s Vs Ward, SCO 20, FF, Sector 20-D, Samana, Chandigarh. (At Patiala). �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABXPG0324P अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate & Shri Ashok Goyal, CA Revenue by : Shri Prabodh Sharma, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 25.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06.07.2026

PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JM

Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 15.11.2025 and 31.12.2025 respectively passed for assessment year 2010-11.

2.

As the facts and circumstances in both the appeals are similar, therefore, both the appeals were heard together and are

ITA No.84 & 105/CHD/2026 A.Y.2010-11 2

being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

and brevity.

3.

In ITA No 84/CHD/2026, the assessee has raised the

following grounds of appeal :

1.

That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 15.11.2025 upholding the assessment order dated 12.12.2017 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the ex-parte assessment passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as the statutory notices were not effectively served upon the appellant. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings as the notice u/s 148 was issued by an Assessing Officer having no territorial jurisdiction over the appellant, rendering the notice bad in law. 4. That the reopening of the assessment is bad in law insofar since Ld. AO has failed to draw live nexus between the information in possession and the reasons for reopening to believe recorded for reopening. 5. That the approval under section 151 accorded by the Ld. PCIT-Patiala is upon borrowed satisfaction and without perusal of records thereby vitiating the consequential proceedings. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not properly addressing the evidence placed on record and confirming the addition of Rs 11,99,500/- under section 68 of the Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing benefit of withdrawal of cash towards explanation of cash deposit. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard.

4.

In ITA No. 105/CHD/2026, the assessee has raised the

following grounds of appeal :

ITA No.84 & 105/CHD/2026 A.Y.2010-11 3 1. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 31.12.2025 confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,71,770/- u/s 271(l)(c) imposed by Ld. AO is bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty order passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as the statutory Show Cause Notices were not served upon the appellant. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) have erred in computing the penalty on the alleged escapement quantified at Rs. 11,99,500/-, ignoring the fact that the actual deposits in the account amounted to Rs. 8,89,000/- 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard.

5.

In ITA No. 84/CHD/2026, before this Tribunal, the ld.

counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT (Appeals)

has erred in upholding the ex-parte assessment order dated

12.12.2017 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act as the statutory

notices were not effectively served upon the appellant. It was

submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the

reassessment proceedings as the notice u/s 148 was issued by an

Assessing Officer having no territorial jurisdiction over the

appellant, rendering the notice bad in law. It was further

submitted that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law

insofar since Ld. AO has failed to draw live nexus between the

information in possession and the reasons for reopening to believe

recorded for reopening. It was submitted that the ld.CIT (Appeals)

has erred in not properly addressing the evidence placed on record

and confirming the addition of Rs 11,99,500/- under section 68 of

ITA No.84 & 105/CHD/2026 A.Y.2010-11 4

the Act. It was submitted by the assessee that the assessee was ex-parte and therefore, the assessee deserves to be given one more

opportunity, therefore, one more opportunity may kindly be granted.

6.

The ld. DR has opposed the grant of opportunity.

7.

I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. I am of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves to be afforded one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, matter is remanded back to the file of ld. AO with direction to decide the case afresh. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings and furnish all supporting evidences and explanations as may be called for by the Assessing Officer.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

As both the appeals are similar, therefore, our findings given in ITA 84/CHD/2026 would apply mutatis-mutandis to ITA No. 105/CHD/2026 also.

ITA No.84 & 105/CHD/2026 A.Y.2010-11 5

10.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 06.07.2026. Sd/-

(LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER “Poonam” आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 3. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 5.

सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →