MANISHA VIJAYRAO AKARE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(4), NAGPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed ex parte and the assessee was not properly served. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee claimed not to have received proper notices, despite providing an email address with a specific instruction not to use it for notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid due to lack of proper service of notice on the assessee and whether the satisfaction for reopening was in accordance with law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 31/10/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the impugned order has been passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, ex parte and Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not served with notices. We find from Form–35 that the assessee had provided an e–mail address, however, it was mentioned that notices be not served by e–mail. The issue involved in the assessme
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
