RAMCHANDRA DAMODAR JADHAV,WADA vs. CIT(A) THANE , THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3968/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 June 2026AY 2012-20134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was disposed of by the CIT(A) without effective representation due to bona fide reasons. The assessee sought restoration of the appeal for a fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘E’ BENCH

For Respondent: Smt. Sujatha Iyyangar
Hearing: 15/06/2026Pronounced: 18/06/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL (A.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Bengaluru for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.144 /148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2012-13.

2 ITA No. 3968/Mum/2026 Ramchandra Damodar Jadhav 2. The primary grievance raised before us is that the appeal has been disposed of without effective representation on behalf of the assessee. It has been submitted that due to bona fide and genuine reasons, the assessee could not properly respond to the notices issued during the course of the appellate proceedings and, consequently, was deprived of an adequate opportunity of presenting its case before the learned CIT(A). It has, therefore, been pleaded that in the interest of substantial justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that he would have no serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

5.

Having considered the submissions of the ld. DR and the material placed on record, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the impugned ex parte order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file with a direction to

3 ITA No. 3968/Mum/2026 Ramchandra Damodar Jadhav decide the appeal afresh on merits and in accordance with law after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings. Since the appeal pertains to an old assessment year and has already remained pending for a considerable period, and further the matter is being restored on account of the bona fide reasons explained by the assessee without adjudication on merits, we deem it appropriate to observe that the learned CIT(A) shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues involved and all contentions are left open.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 18th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (GIRISH AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai; Dated 18/06/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

4 ITA No. 3968/Mum/2026 Ramchandra Damodar Jadhav

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →