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

ITA 82/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 October 2026AY 2013-147 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, 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)] dated February 12, 2025. This order stemmed from a regular assessment framed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1, Rewa, for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The assessee had declared a total income of ₹17,71,760/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and an excess claim of deduction under Section 54B amounting to ₹54,68,591/- was disallowed, leading to an assessed total income of ₹72,40,351/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who issued ten hearing notices between January 2021 and February 2023. The assessee failed to respond to these notices, leading the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal ex-parte.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) could not be sustained. The Tribunal noted that the first eight notices were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic and the exclusion period, which provided sufficient reason for the assessee's inability to respond. For the subsequent notices, the assessee provided reasons such as his counsel's severe illness and hospitalization, and his own accident, which prevented him from effectively presenting his case. The Tribunal found these reasons to be sufficient and bonafide. The ITAT relied on the decision 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, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach over a rigid technical one. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to present his case and that the CIT(A)'s order violated the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on the taxability of capital gains and deductibility of exemption claimed, in accordance with the law and after providing a speaking order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was rightly dismissed ex-parte, 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. He contended that the first eight notices were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent exclusion period, making timely response difficult. For the remaining notices, he cited his counsel's severe illness and hospitalization, and later, his own accident, which prevented him from effectively representing his case. He submitted that these were valid reasons for seeking adjournments and that the dismissal was against the principles of natural justice. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue on this limited issue. However, the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order implies a finding that the assessee's reasons were not sufficient to warrant further adjournment or that the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence and explanations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 253(1),Section 246A,Section 249,Section 18

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 →