RAMCHANDRA RAMGOPAL,AKOLA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 385/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 June 2026AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored all issues for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 9 days, citing dissolution of the firm and partner differences. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without clear evidence of proper notice service.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid due to lack of proper notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Loya, CA
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 09.06.2026Pronounced: 09.06.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 08/01/2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is emanating from the assessment order dated 20.12.2018

ITA No. 385/NAG/2026 (Ramchandra Ramgopal) passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that appeal has been filed before this Tribunal with delay of 09 days. In this regard, we find that an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit of one of the partners is filed wherein it is disclosed on oath that the firm was dissolved on 31.10.2013 and thereafter partners are having differences due to which case could not be represented adequately. We find that in the impugned order, NFAC has proceeded ex-parte relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Another (118 ITR 461), however, impugned order does not reflect as to by what mode notices were issued, drawing a satisfaction that assessee has been duly served notices of hearing. It appears that if notices were issued by email, then the firm being no more operational there was no response.

ITA No. 385/NAG/2026 (Ramchandra Ramgopal) 3. In the light of the aforesaid, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for hearing. We also consider the fact that impugned order is exparte, therefore, restore all the issues to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) shall grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard before passing the order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act.

4.

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

Order pronounced in open Court on 09.06.2026

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

Nagpur: Dated: 09/06/2026 vr/-

ITA No. 385/NAG/2026 (Ramchandra Ramgopal) 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 10:33:21 +05'30' Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →