TRIMURTI ASSOCIATES ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1), UJJAIN

ITA 899/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 October 2026AY 2009-1016 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee attempted to make a fresh case at the second appellate stage. It observed that the assessee was non-compliant before the AO and CIT(A) and remained in a 'slumber mode'. The Tribunal found that no meritorious grounds were urged or argued on merits before it. However, the Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) (Faceless) did not adjudicate the initial submissions filed by the assessee on August 4, 2017, despite the statutory mandate under Section 250(6) to adjudicate the case on merits. The CIT(A) Faceless wanted more information beyond what was already on record, treating the assessee's reiteration of prior submissions as non-compliance. The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was not on merits and was contrary to Section 250(6). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all necessary material. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Trimurti Associates, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an ex-parte assessment order under sections 144/147 on November 30, 2016, computing the total income at Rs. 78,94,000/-. This action was based on AIR information regarding the purchase of an immovable property of that value. The AO had issued notices under section 148 (March 18, 2016), 142(1) (October 26, 2016), and another notice on November 7, 2016, seeking sources for the amount, but the assessee failed to reply or comply. The assessee was also noted as a non-filer. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal, citing non-compliance and failure to provide sufficient evidence despite multiple opportunities, relying on the principle that law aids the vigilant.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 78,94,000/- made by the AO under sections 144/147, which the assessee claims was done in a summary and mechanical manner? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 144 and Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing the appeal order without considering the submissions made by the assessee before him and his predecessor? (Question of law and fact, concerning the appellate procedure). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the invocation of provisions of Section 147 read with Section 148 and upholding the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 without proper service of notice under Section 148? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 147, Section 148, and Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition mechanically and summarily. They contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider their submissions made during appellate proceedings and before the predecessor CIT(A). Furthermore, the assessee argued that the invocation of Section 147 read with Section 148 and the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 were erroneous due to improper service of notice under Section 148. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that for recording reasons under Section 148, prima facie some material is sufficient, and the correctness of the material is not to be considered at that stage. They asserted that the burden of proof lies on the assessee, which the assessee failed to discharge before the lower authorities. The revenue relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 250,Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(C),Section 217(F),Section 246A,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

For Respondent: Shri Binay Kumar Rai, Sr.DR
Hearing: 06.10.2026Pronounced: 22.10.2026

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M:

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ hereinafter referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080190232(1)

dated 30.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned

order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2009-10 and the Trimurti Associates ITA No. 899/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2009-10

corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. 2. Factual Matrix

2.

1 That as & by way of an assessment order dated

30.11.

2016 passed u/s 144/147

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →