SANJAY MISHRA,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, REWA

ITA 82/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 October 2026AY 2013-147 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, filed his return for AY 2013-14 declaring an income of ₹17,71,760. His case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a claim of deduction under Section 54B amounting to ₹54,68,591, leading to an assessed total income of ₹72,40,351. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued ten notices to the assessee between January 2021 and February 2023, requesting written submissions and evidence. The assessee failed to respond to these notices, citing reasons such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospitalization of his counsel, and a personal accident. Consequently, the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte and dismissed the appeal. The assessee has now filed a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the ex-parte dismissal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the CIT(A) could not be sustained. The Tribunal noted that the first eight notices issued by the CIT(A) fell within the period of the COVID-19 pandemic and the exclusion period directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which provided sufficient reason for the assessee's inability to respond. Furthermore, for the subsequent notices, the assessee had provided reasons such as the severe illness and hospitalization of his counsel and a personal accident. While acknowledging the CIT(A)'s mandate to dispose of old pending cases, the Tribunal emphasized that this should not come at the cost of violating the principles of natural justice. Relying on the judgments of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. and the Supreme Court in Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors., the Tribunal stated that a justice-oriented approach should be adopted. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, directing the CIT(A) to decide the taxability of capital gains and the deductibility of the exemption claimed in accordance with the law, ensuring compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The first ground of appeal was considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, considering the circumstances presented by the assessee regarding his inability to respond to notices? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that his failure to respond to the CIT(A)'s notices was due to sufficient and bonafide reasons, including the subsistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and exclusion period, the hospitalization of his legal counsel, and a personal accident. He contended that the CIT(A) should have granted further opportunities to present his case, especially given these circumstances. The assessee relied on the Delhi High Court decision in CIT Vs Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. and the Supreme Court's judgment in Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue on the issue of the ex-parte dismissal. The Ld. DR appeared but no arguments are detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(1),Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 54B,Section 143(2),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 Dhiraj Gai [‘Ld. AR’]
For Respondent: Mr Rahul Padha [‘Ld. DR’]
Pronounced: 06/10/2026

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/250/2024-25/1073206374(1) dt. passed by Commissioner of Income 12/02/2025 Tax(Appeals), Raipur [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] u/s 250 of the Act which sprung out from regular assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rewa [‘Ld. AO’] for assessment year 2013-14 [‘AY’].

ITAT-Jabalpur Sanjay Mishra Vs ITO ITA No. 082/JAB/2025 AY: 2013-14

2.

The relevant facts of the case stated briefly are that; the assessee is an Individual filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 on 31/03/2

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 54B

All 804 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →