POOJA SHREE JWELLERS,CHHINDWARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 137/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 September 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte. While acknowledging the CIT(A)'s constraint to dispose of the appeal due to CBDT guidelines for prompt disposal of old pending appeals, the Tribunal found that the proceedings suffered from a violation of the principles of natural justice. This was due to the absence of evidential material, written submissions, and assistance from the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. and the Supreme Court's judgment in Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors., emphasizing a justice-oriented approach over a rigid technical one. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits, with a direction to consider evidential material, written submissions, and explanations from the assessee, and to pass a speaking order in terms of Section 250(6) of the Act. No comment was made on the merits of the additions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Poojashree Jewellers, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jabalpur Bench, challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A)'s order stemmed from a re-assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) dismissed their appeal without providing an effective notice, an opportunity to adduce evidence, or time to file written submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The revenue, represented by the Ld. DR, candidly supported the assessee's submission regarding the procedural deficiency.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as contemplated under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) expedited the disposal of the appeal based on CBDT guidelines without granting a reasonable opportunity to present evidence or file written submissions. The dismissal was allegedly based on a sheer absence of evidence and written statements, necessitating a set-aside for de-novo adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR candidly supported the assessee's submission and could hardly object to the plea for remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(1),Section 250,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 246A,Section 249,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, MP

Before: HON’BLE SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Bardia [‘Ld. AR’]
For Respondent: Mr Dhananjay Wanjari [‘Ld. DR’]
Pronounced: 29/09/2026

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; This appeal is filed by the assessee u/s 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] which challenges DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074651340(1) dt. passed by Commissioner of Income 18/03/2025 Tax(Appeals), Raipur [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] u/s 250 of the Act which sprung out from re-assessment order framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Jabalpur [‘Ld. AO’] for assessment year 2018-19 [‘AY’].

ITAT-Jabalpur Poojashree Jewellers Vs DCIT ITA No. 137/JAB/2025 AY: 2018-19

2.

At the p

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →