PRADEEP KUMAR RAM PATAN GUPTA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(9), BHAVNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 527/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 July 2026AY 2022-235 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file, subject to the assessee paying a cost of INR 5,000. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) with submissions and supporting documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee claimed this was due to a communication breakdown with their authorized representative.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case, and if a reasonable opportunity should be granted to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 40A(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 19/12/2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 13/03/2024 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’],for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. The Assessee has, inter alia, raised following ground in the present appeal: Assessment Year 2022-2023

“1. Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in passing the impugned order ex-parte. “

3.

We have heard both the sides and have perused the materials available on record.

4.

It is admit that the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 13/03/2024, read with Section 144B of the Act was dismissed by Learned CIT(A) by way of an ex-parte order since the Assessee has failed to comply with notice of hearing issued by the Learned CIT(A). When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee pleaded that one more opportunity be granted to the Assessee to make out a case on merits before the Learned CIT(A). It was submitted that the non- appearance before the First Appellate Authority had occurred on account of lack of communication and misunderstanding between the Assessee and the Authorized Representative.

5.

Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the Assessee has been non-compliant during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings.

On perusal of the Assessment Order, we find that as against returned 6. income of INR.6,54,230/- for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The Assessing Officer had assessed income of the assessee at INR.1,85,61,762/- after making following additions/disallowances:

(i) Addition of INR.10,84,251/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act.

(ii) Addition of INR.26,22,335/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unverified creditors.

(iii) Addition of INR.1,42,00,946/- u/s. 68 on account of alleged bogus liability in the name of Raj Sales.

2 Assessment Year 2022-2023

7.

We find that in appeal before the Learned CIT(A) the Assessee had challenged the validity of the assessment proceedings on account of violation of procedure stated in Section 144B of the Act in addition to challenging the above addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on merits. On perusal of the order impugned we find that no independent findings have been returned by Learned CIT(A) on any of the issued as the grounds raised by the Assessee have been dismissed on account of failure of the Assessee to furnish reply/submission in response to notice of hearing issued by the Learned CIT(A). We note that the Learned CIT(A) has also recorded that even before the Assessing Officer, the Assessee had been non-compliant.

Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met in case, subject to payment of cost for non-compliance, an opportunity is granted to the Assessee. Accordingly, subject to payment of cost of INR 5,000/- to be deposited in The Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order, the impugned ex-parte Order, dated 13/12/2025, passed by Learned CIT(A) is set-aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of the Learned CIT(A). The Assessee is directed to deposit the proof of payment of cost before the Learned CIT(A) and file submission/details along with supporting documents before the Learned CIT(A) without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. It is clarified that in the case the Assessee fails to comply with the aforesaid directions and/or fails to enter appearance before the Learned CIT(A), the Learned CIT(A) would be at liberty to dispose the appeal as per law based upon the material on record. It is clarified that the Assessee would be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and all the other grounds are dismissed without returning any findings on merits.

3 Assessment Year 2022-2023

8.

In result, in terms of paragraph 6 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 03.07.2026. (Dr. B.R.R. Kumar) Judicial Member

िदनांक Dated : 03.07.2026 अहमदाबाद Ahmedabad;Rajesh Kumar

4 Assessment Year 2022-2023

आदेशक""ितिलिपअ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

2.

""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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →