SRI TEJA THEATRES,PALAKOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALAKOL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the notice of hearing from the CIT(A)'s office was sent to an incorrect email ID, leading to the assessee's absence. Therefore, the appeal could not be adjudicated on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm, sold immovable properties during the assessment year 2017-18 without filing a return of income. Reassessment proceedings were initiated, and the assessment was completed ex-parte after the assessee failed to comply with notices. The appeal before the CIT(A) was also dismissed ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was justified due to improper service of notice, and if the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity for hearing and adjudication on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH,
Before: SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON’BLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापत्तनम पीठ, धिशाखापत्तनम INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH: DIVN BEFORE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 94/VIZ/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assmt. Year: 2017-18) SRI TEJA THEATRES THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 FLAT NO.304, BVR TOWERS INCOME TAX OFFICE, BRODIPET 1ST STREET, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR NEW WATER TANK, Vs. DODDIPATLA ROAD PALAKOL-534260, PALAKOL-534260, ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH (अपीलार्थी Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी Respondent) Permanent Account Number of Assessee: ABKFS6014P निर्धारिती द्वधिध/Assessee represented by: Shri GVN Hari, Advocate िधजस्व द्वधिध/Revenue represented by: Sri Nilanjan Dey, CIT(DR)
सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 09-Jun-2026 घोषणध की तधिीख / Date of pronouncement: 12-Jun-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act”] dated 19.11.2025 which has emanated from the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld.AO”] dated 26.03.2022 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: -
“1. The order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is not in accordance with law and consequently the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice u/s 148 of the Act as invalid and the reassessment proceedings as void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to Ground no.2 and 3, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the sale proceeds of Rs.6,19,90,000 are not assessable in the hands of the appellant. 5. Without prejudice to Ground no.2 to 4, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the assessing officer to allow the deductions in accordance with law while assessing the capital gains arising out of the sale of properties. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”
Brief facts emerging from records are that, the assessee is a partnership firm has sold immovable properties vide Document No. 5063/2016 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,84,75,000/-, Document No. 5064/2016 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,88,35,000/- and Document No. 5065/2016 for a sale consideration of Rs.46,80,000/-, during the year under appeal and no return of income has been filed u/s 139 (1) , for the year under appeal. In absence of any return on record, proceedings were initiated vide notice under section 148 of the Act dated 26.03.2021 ( as per procedure ) and on the failure on the part of the assessee to file any return in compliance to such notice and also on account of non-compliance to subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessment was finally completed exparte on a total income of Rs.6.19 crores, by treating the total sales consideration arising out of the three sales document as income.
The matter carried in appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority has been dismissed in the absence of any compliance to various notices issued on five separate dates of hearing as evident from Page No. 7 of the Appellate Order.
Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the Memorandum of Appeal. In the course of hearing, the Ld Authorized Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) submitted that no compliance could be made in course of First Appellate Proceedings because the notice of hearing has not been issued in the e-mail ID mentioned in Form No. 35 and he referred to copy of said form placed along with the Memorandum of appeal and submitted that the e-mail ID specifically provided for receipt of communication from the appellate office in course of First Appellate Proceedings was neelamsetty9@gmail.com, but unfortunately no e-mail has been issued or served on the said e-mail ID. He further referred to Page No. 28 of the Paper Book to submit that the notices actually has been issued in the e-mail ID plnaudit@gmail.com and has furnished a copy of the screenshot taken from the portal as proof thereof. As such the Ld AR prayed that in absence of any proper notice of hearing, no representation could be caused by the assessee , before the Ld. First Appellate Authority and he prayed for a fair opportunity of hearing for submission of all documentary evidences to prove his case.
Ld. Departmental Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”) relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but could not contradict the submission of the assessee and he had no objection if the matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that the notice of hearing from the Office of the First Appellate Authority has been issued on an e-mail ID which is different from the one that is mentioned in Form No. 35 and it is also not evident from the body of the Appellate Order as to how the notice of hearing has been issued and served. We also find that in absence of any representation by the assessee , the appeal could not be adjudicated on merits on the grounds contained in Form No.35.
As such, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the file of Ld. First Appellate Authority for providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to adjudicate on all the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal on merits of the case and we also direct the assessee to furnish all documentary evidences and submissions in support of his contention and to prove his case forthwith and to fully cooperate in Appellate Proceedings for proper disposal of the appeal.
The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard and notice to be issued in the ITBA portal and also in the email ID as per Form No. 35 and also in the email of the counsel if the same is available on record.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA UDAYAN DAS GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Visakhapatnam Dated:12.06.2026 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy to: SRI TEJA THEATRES, FLAT NO.304, BVR TOWERS, BRODIPET 1 1ST STREET, NEAR NEW WATER TANK, PALACOLE-534260, ANDHRA PRADESH
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AAYAKAR 2 BHAVAN, DODDIPATLA ROAD, PALACOLE-534260, ANDHRA PRADESH
3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
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 →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026