ANU AMIT BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 254/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 October 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings fixed by the AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal noted that if the assessee failed to comply, the AO would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, implying that the merits of the assessment order were not decided at this stage. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Tribunal's decision was to restore the matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anu Amit Bansal, is an individual who did not file a return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. The Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on information from the Insight Portal. The assessee filed a return declaring Rs. 4,48,220. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 87,80,555 under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE, assessing the total income at Rs. 92,28,780. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, but the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, passed ex-parte, deserves to be set aside, considering the alleged bona fide reasons for non-attendance and the manner of service of notices, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. 2. Whether, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to make an effective representation before the Assessing Officer, considering the assessee's claim of now possessing all relevant details and documents. Assessee's Contentions: The Ld. AR for the assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-prosecution, which occurred because notices were sent to the assessee's email despite the assessee requesting physical hearings and marking '-' in the relevant column of Form No. 35. The Ld. CIT(A) also fixed only three hearings in a short span. The assessee contended that the assessment order itself is not meritorious due to lack of full submissions and prayed for restoration to the AO for a fresh adjudication, promising an effective representation. The assessee relied on the principle of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR for the revenue, while not opposing the prayer for restoration, submitted that the assessee was non-compliant during the first appeal proceedings, leading to the ex-parte order. The revenue also noted that the assessee had not made full and effective submissions to the AO. The revenue requested appropriate directions for strict compliance by the assessee upon restoration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10/08/2026Pronounced: 22/10/2026

आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by the order of first-appeal dated 03.12.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 28.02.2025 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“Ld. AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2020-21, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

2.

The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual did not file any return of AY 2020-21. The Ld. AO, taking into account the information available on Insight Portal of Income-tax Department reflecting certain financial transactions done by assessee during the relevant year, issued notice u/s 148 to make assessment u/s 147. In response, the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs.4,48,220/-. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1)/show-cause notice u/s 144 from time to time asking details from assessee and ultimately completed assessment after making an addition of Rs. 87,80,555/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE and thereby assessing total income at Rs. 92,28,780/-. Aggrived, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in present appeal before us.

3.

Ld. AR for assessee submitted that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order dismissing assessee’s first appeal merely approving the order of Ld. AO due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but the non-prosecution occurred due to bona fide reason as the Ld. CIT(A), while conducting first-appeal, has served notices of hearing on e-mail of assessee although the assessee has specifically mentioned “-” in the column provided in Form No. 35 asking “Whether notices/communication may be sent on email?”. Therefore, the assessee demanded physical hearing from Ld.

CIT(A) but against the demand of assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) issued all notices through e-mail/ITBA as mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) himself in Para 5 of his order. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) fixed only three hearings within a short span of time. Hence, the assessee could not attend hearings fixed by Ld. CIT(A), which has led to the passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A). In the situation, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order of first-appeal passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside. He went ahead to demonstrate that the assessment- order passed by Ld. AO is also not meritorious due to lack of full submissions by assessee but the assessee is now having in his possession, all relevant details and documents and ready to make an effective representation before Ld. AO. He prayed that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be given to assessee by way of restoring this matter at the level of Ld. AO. He acknowledged that the assessee shall definitely make a proper and effective representation before Ld. AO.

4.

Ld. DR for revenue, though not opposing the prayer of the assessee for restoration, submitted that the assessee had remained non-compliant during the proceedings of first-appeal, which constrained the Ld. CIT(A) to pass ex- parte order. Further, the assessee has not made full and effective submission to Ld. AO also. It was, therefore, submitted that while restoring the matter, appropriate directions may be issued to ensure strict compliance by the assessee.

5.

Considering the above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of Ld. AO, we restore this matter to the file of Ld. AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The Ld. AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by Ld. AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

6.

In result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 22/10/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat True Copy िदनांक /Dated : 22/10/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Surat Bench, Surat

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →