BLUERAY TRADING PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to be vigilant and file submissions. The first ground was allowed for statistical purposes, while other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance with notices, partly attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee sought another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with notices, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
By way of the present appeal Assessee has challenged the Order, dated 30/08/2023, passed by Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax, Appeals -11 Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 23/12/2019, passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. We have heard both the sides. In the present case assessment under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 23/12/2019. The appeal Assessment Year 2012-2013
preferred by the Assessee against the aforesaid Assessment Order was dismissed by Learned CIT(A) since the Assessee failed to respond to various notices issued by the Learned CIT(A). Being aggrieved the Assesse has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.
When the appeal was taken up for the hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for Assessee sought another opportunity to make proper representation before the Learned CIT(A). It was submitted that most of notices issued by Learned CIT(A) could not be complied with since the same were issued during COVID 19 Pandemic period. The Assessee had responded to two notices of hearing issued by Learned CIT(A) by seeking adjournment. However, despite the making efforts, the Assessee could not comply with the notices and the appeal preferred by the Assessee got to be dismissed.
Per contra the Learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the Learned CIT(A) had issued a number of notices. Since the Assessee did not respond, the grounds raised by the Assessee was disposed off on merits by the Learned CIT(A). Therefore, there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT(A).
Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal on records, we finds that the submission made by the Learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee are factually correct. It is admitted position that the appeal preferred by the Assessee was disposed of in absence of any effective representation from the side of the Assessee. Given the aforesaid, we deem it appropriate set aside the impugned Order, dated 30/08/2023, passed by Learned CIT(A) and restore the grounds raised in appeal before the Learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication before Learned CIT(A) as per law after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal and file submissions and supporting
2 Assessment Year 2012-2013
documents before Learned CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is clarified that in case the Assessee fails to file submission and/or fails to enter appearance, the Learned CIT(A) would be at liberty to adjudicate to grounds raised in appeal on merits based upon materials on record. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes without returning any finding on merits. Since we have set aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), balance grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
In result, in terms of in terms of Paragraph No.5 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on 17.06.2026. (Dr. B.R.R Kumar) Judicial Member
िदनांकDated :17.06.2026 अहमदाबाद Ahmedabad;H.C. PS
3 Assessment Year 2012-2013
आदेशक""ितिलिपअ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""यथ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.
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 →- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026