MAS PHARMECHEM,NALAGARH, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), , KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 144 was passed due to non-compliance by the assessee, and the CIT(A) confirmed this order also due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, considering the submission that a reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee to place its case before the AO, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was inclined to remit the appeals to the file of the AO. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to hear the assessee and pass a fresh order. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of ex-parte orders, especially where a claim of lack of opportunity is made, and the revenue does not object to a remand, the interest of justice may warrant a fresh opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee, MAS Pharmechem, a partnership firm engaged in medicine manufacturing, is in appeal against orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19 and 2019-20. A search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, led to the impounding of documents. The assessee failed to file a return in response to a notice under Section 153A and also did not comply with a notice under Section 142(1). Consequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte order under Section 144, making an addition of ₹5,20,65,962/- for bogus purchases. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the assessee's appeal, again due to non-compliance.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal should remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, given that the orders passed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were ex-parte and the assessee claims no opportunity was given to represent its case? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee argued that the appeals should be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration, as the orders were ex-parte and the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present its case. The AR did not argue on the merits of the case. Revenue's Contention: The learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the impugned orders but did not object to remitting the appeals to the file of the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, AM
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:
These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-26 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 10.03.2025 & 10.03.2025 for the AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20.
In both the appeals issue are common, hence, taken up together for disposal by taking ITA No.45/KOL/2025 as lead case.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm had engaged in the business of manufacturing of medicines. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19, declaring total income amounting to ₹7,77,75,640/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted and during the course of search operations, several incriminating documents
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee has preferred the appeal before us.
The ld. AR instead of arguing on merit of the case has only prayed in both the appeals that the matter should be remitted back to the file of the ld. AO as the order passed by the ld. AO confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) are an ex-parte order and no opportunity had been given to the assessee to represent his case. The ld. AR has only prayed that the appeals should be remitted back to the file of the ld. AO for fresh consideration. 07. Contrary to that, the ld. DR though supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer
Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the order of the ld. lower authorities, we find that the assessment order passed u/s 153A read with section 144 of the Act,
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- SANJAY AWASTHI (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 23.06.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//
Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
