ASHOK PETROL CO.,INDORE vs. THE ITO - 2(1), INDORE, INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 118/IND/2026Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 April 2026AY 2020-218 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice as notices were sent to the wrong email address. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex-parte due to non-compliance and lack of evidence. The assessee contended that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice due to incorrect service of notices. Whether the reopening of assessment and additions made were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151,Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR
Hearing: 21.04.2026Pronounced: 30.04.2026

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a

second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084225898(1)

dated 30.12.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the

Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned

order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2020-21 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2019 to

31.03.2020.

2.

Factual Matrix

2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s

147 rws 144/144B of the Act, the total income of the

Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 25,28,642/-. ROI

u/s 148 was not filed. The addition of Rs.25, 28,642/- was

made basis estimation @2.50% of the total turnover i.e.

2.5% of Rs. 10, 11, 45,663/- = Rs. 25,28,642/-. That the

aforesaid “Assessment order” bears no: -

ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1074815626(1) and that the

same is dated 21.03.2025, which is herein after referred to

as the “Impugned Assessment Order”

2.2 That the Assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the

“Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the

Assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were

as under:-

“4. Submission On perusal available records it is seen that the appellant has been offered sufficient opportunities before disposal of the appeal since the appeal was instituted as on 27.03.2025, but the appellant did not furnish any documentary evidences on the dates posted for hearing in support of his claim the appellant failed to substantiate his grounds of appeal with evidences. There are no responses to the following notices/letters as under; 1. Hearing notice u/s 250 dated; 07/08/2025 2. Hearing notice u/s 250 dated; 09/10/2025 3. Hearing notice u/s 250 dated: 24/10/2025 “5 decision- it is found from the records that since the filing of appeal , the appellant has remained unresponsive.” xxxxxx In view of the above the primary onus of complying with the notices is that of the appellant above after taking into consideration of all the material on record. In view of the above, the appeal is hereby treated as infructuous treated as dismissed as well as non-compliance accordingly. 6. To sum up appeals is dismissed according.”

2.3 The Assessee being Aggrieved by the “Impugned Order”

has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal

and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the form

No. 36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:-

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Inw, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte 1 without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and without adjudicating the grounds of appeal as raised by the appellant. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. the ITO-2(1) Indore erred in issuing show-cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 13-02-2024, passing order under section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 16-03-2024 and issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 16-03- 2024 even when as per binding CBDT notification dated 29-03- 2022 (Notification No. 18/2022), any notices issued after 29-03- 2022 were required to be made through automated allocation and in a faceless manner.

3.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the 3 appellant for Assessment Year 2020-21 even when there was no income represented in form of asset as defined under section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which has escaped assessment. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant even in absence of any information which suggested that income chargeable to tax had escaped from assessment 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant without obtaining proper sanction as mandated by the provisions of section 151 of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 25,28,642/- to the total income of the appellant on account of estimation of net profit at the rate of 2.50 percent of total turnover of Rs. 10,11,45,663/- as reflected in GSTR-1 without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him even when the appellant has earned net profit of Rs. 2,41,414/- only during the year under consideration. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 25,28,642/- to the total income of the appellant on account of estimation of net profit at the rate of 2.50 percent of total turnover of Rs. 10,11,45,663/- as reflected in GSTR - 1 without rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act. 8. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it.”

3.

Record of Hearing

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal

on 21.04.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on the behalf of the

Assessee appeared before us & interalia contended that the “Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It is in

the violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR

has placed on the record of this tribunal a paper book

containing pages 1 to 99. The Ld. AR submitted that the

“Impugned Order” is an “ex-parte order” whereas the

“Impugned Assessment Order” of Ld. AO is a bi-Parte one,

although section 144 is invoked. It was submitted that no

return of Income was filed u/s 148 of the Act. The original

return of income was not filed too. Part submissions were

made before the Ld. Assessing Officer which fact is recorded

in Para 2 of the “Impugned Assessment Order” in the form

of a table. In the form no. 35 email id address was

sureshkkhadiwala@gmail.com. Our attention was then

invited to page 1 of the PB, page 6 of the PB and page 11 of

the PB which were in total 3 notices u/s 250 on email id

address remashankarpatel05@gmail.com consequently due

to wrong email services of the notice(s) no reply, submissions

could be made and that there was a non-participation of the

assessee. The “Impugned Order” therefore is in the violation

of the principle of natural justice and that same should be set aside. Per contra the Ld. DR for and on behalf of the

Revenue submitted that Dept. of Income tax has no objection

if the “Impugned Order” is set aside and matter is

remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) on De novo basis.

Hearing was then over and closed.

4.

Observations Findings & conclusions

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & further

upon examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld.

DR canvassed before us, observe that the “Impugned

Assessment Order” is Bi-parte and part submissions were made

before the Ld. AO. However in so far as the “Impugned Order” is

concerned same was decided in an ex-parte manner as 3 notice(s)

of hearings on different dates were sent on some other email address then what was filed and stated in the form no. 35 as

discussed supra. Under these facts and circumstances we hold

that the “Impugned Order” is passed in the violation of the

principle of natural justice. Consequently we set aside the

“Impugned Order” as and by way of remand back to the file of

the Ld. CIT (A) on De novo basis. We direct the Ld. CIT (A) to give

notice(s) etc. on correct email address as provided in the form no.

35.

We further direct the assessee to participate in the first

appellate proceedings to file reply and to make such submissions

with documents/material/evidences etc. as the assessee deems

fit. The Ld. CIT (A) is directed to then adjudge and adjudicate the

first appeal by passing a fresh order on De novo basis. Needless

to state such fresh order of the Ld. CIT (A) should be a speaking

and a reasoned one. It should be on the merits of the case.

4.4 In view of the premises drawn up by us we set aside the

“Impugned Order” as and by way of remand back to the file of

Ld. CIT (A) with directions as aforesaid.

Order 5 5.1 In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

way of remand back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) with the

directions as aforesaid.

5.2. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in open court on 30.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore Dated : 30/04/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 8 of 8

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →