RAJKISHORE MANIYAR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 2, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 432/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 June 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the NFAC should have investigated the assessee's claim for adjournment based on CESTAT proceedings. To ensure a fair hearing, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed by the NFAC for non-compliance. The assessee sought adjournment based on CESTAT proceedings, but the NFAC relied on a Supreme Court decision and dismissed the appeal without further inquiry.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the assessee's request for adjournment based on CESTAT proceedings. Whether the assessee was provided with a fair opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Hearing: 10.06.2026Pronounced: 11.06.2026

PER BENCH:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 13/11/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is emanating from the penalty order dated 29.06.2018

ITA No. 432/NAG/2025 (Rajkishore Maniyar) passed u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act by the DCIT, Circle-2, Nagpur, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing and record shows that notices have been issued. No further opportunity is justifiable.

3.

We have heard Ld.DR and observe that the impugned order has been passed by the NFAC relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya (118 ITR 461) observing that assessee is non-compliant. The assessee has raised certain plea in its submissions on the basis of order of CESTAT claiming that there is no stay and on that basis adjournment was sought. However, NFAC considered that assessee had not discharged primary onus and dismissed the appeal.

4.

In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view, if assessee had sought adjournment on the basis of stay proceedings by an order of CESTAT, then NFAC should have enquired the issue further, but relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

ITA No. 432/NAG/2025 (Rajkishore Maniyar) Court in B.N. Bhattacharya (supra), appeal was dismissed. Thus, to give the assessee fair opportunity of hearing to contest the matter on merits, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the issues raised on merits as well as law are restored to the files of Ld. CIT(A) to be given the assessee fresh opportunity before passing the order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Corresponding ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 11.06.2026

sd/- sd/- ANUBHAV SHARMA KHETTRA MOHAN ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Nagpur: Dated: 11/06/2026 vr/-

ITA No. 432/NAG/2025 (Rajkishore Maniyar) Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Nagpur 5. Guard file. By order Vukkem Digitally signed by Vukkem Rambabu Rambabu Date: 2026.06.11 15:07:37 +05'30' Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →