M/S SOM MARBLEX PVT. LTD.,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MAKRANA, MAKRANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1071/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 June 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the change in counsel and incorrect email communication. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without considering the merits. This occurred because a notice was sent to the old counsel's email address instead of the newly appointed counsel's, leading to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and examining the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CA (Virtually)
For Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Agarwal Addl, DR (Virtually)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1071/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2020-21) M/s Som Marblex Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Ward-1, Makrana Kalani and Co. LLP, Chartered Accountants, 5th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur PAN-AAHCS9456N Assessee by Shri P.C. Parwal, CA (Virtually) Revenue by Shri Vaibhav Agarwal Addl. CIT-DR (Virtually) Date of Hearing 14 / 05 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 01 / 06 / 2026.

ORDER PER: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the NFAC/CIT(A)] dated 19.09.2025 with respect to assessment year 2020-21.

2.

The appellant has challenged the impugned order passed exparte qua the assessee, in violation of natural justice and it is requested to send

2 ITA No. 1071/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2020-21) the matter back to the file of the AO with the direction to adjudicate the issue on merits of the case after considering the submission of the assessee or allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing.

3.

The Ld. AR has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not been fair while holding that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and confirming the addition made by the AO without appreciating the fact that against the notice dated 28.08.2025 adjournment application was filed by the newly appointed counsel CA Anil Nuhal of Kalani & Company LLP on its letterhead on which the E- mail address was mentioned. However, the subsequent notice dated 09.09.2025 was sent on the E-mail ID of the old counsel, consequently no communication was made to the assessee or the newly appointed present counsel and thereby the notices were not responded as the notice was sent on the E-mail address of the old counsel, who sought the adjournment on the earlier date. Thus it is highly unreasonable to presume that assessee failed to comply with the notice, without a reasonable cause while rejecting the appeal of the assessee exparte by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR has requested that assessee deserves one

3 ITA No. 1071/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2020-21) more opportunity of being heard before the AO as the Ld. CIT(A) has not examined the facts of the case on merits.

4.

The Ld. DR on the other hand has relied on the impugned order.

5.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record and the impugned order. Admittedly the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee exparte by merely stating that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the AO without examining the merits of the case. We find that in the present case an adjournment application was filed by the new counsel Shri Anil Nuhal CA of Kalani Company LLP on its letterhead where E- mail ID was mentioned but subsequent notice dated 09.09.2025 was sent by the Ld. CIT(A) on the E-mail address of the old counsel and consequently it was not communicated to the assessee and thereby it could not be responded by the appellant.

6.

In our view, the appellant has reasonable cause for the non- compliance of the notice before the Ld. CIT(A) due to change of the new counsel E-mail address and non-issuing of notice by the Ld. CIT(A) on the changed E-mail ID of the present counsel. It is noted that the appellant has a good arguable case on merits. We, therefore, consider it

4 ITA No. 1071/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2020-21) deem appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the AO to examine the issue of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C and addition under Section 68 of the Act and the sundry creditors as unexplained/ creditors under Section 68, De Novo after considering the submission of the assessee on granting adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the AO by furnishing the necessary information sought for by the AO in the De Novo assessment proceedings.

7.

Accordingly, the matter is restored back to the file of the AO to pass De Novo assessment in accordance with law.

8.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 01 / 06 / 2026 in the open court.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 01 / 06 / 2026. Pritesh Vaishnav PS

5 ITA No. 1071/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2020-21) True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →