ZB91 THIRUKKADAIYUR PRIMARY AGRI COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,THIRUKKADAIYUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (1), NAGAPATTINAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the inadvertent error and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine because the wrong assessment order was inadvertently filed. The assessment itself was completed on a best judgment basis.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to an inadvertent filing error, or if the assessee should be granted an opportunity for fresh adjudication on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.10.2023 passed under section 250 of
ITA No.221/CHNY/2026 - 2 - ZB91 Thirukkadaiyur PACCS the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the assessee had inadvertently mentioned/enclosed the assessment order pertaining to a different assessee in Form No.35 and, therefore, treated the appeal as infructuous. Further, we also note that the assessment has been completed on best judgment basis r.w.s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has raised various grounds; however, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR pressed only Ground No.5. The Ld. AR submitted that the wrong assessment order was inadvertently filed before the FAA. He further submitted that the assessment was completed on best judgment basis and, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee by restoring the matter to the file of the AO for effective adjudication on merits. The Ld. AR undertook to duly appear before the AO and furnish all necessary details as and when called for.
ITA No.221/CHNY/2026 - 3 - ZB91 Thirukkadaiyur PACCS 4. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA & AO and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee had inadvertently filed the assessment order pertaining to a different assessee before the FAA, resulting in dismissal of the appeal in limine. We also note that the assessment in the present case was completed on best judgment basis u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent its case before the AO and undertook that he would duly appear and furnish the necessary details as and when called for. In light of the submissions of Ld.AR and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the FAA. Accordingly, the order of the FAA is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
ITA No.221/CHNY/2026 - 4 - ZB91 Thirukkadaiyur PACCS
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st August,2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (गगन गोयल) (GAGAN GOYAL) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 31st August, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Madurai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.09.02 12:51:38 +05'30'
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 →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026