GHANSHYAM KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not responded to several notices from the CIT(A) and had missed a final notice, leading to an ex-parte order. However, to render substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed returns which were processed. A search action covered the assessee's residence, leading to a notice under Section 153C. The AO estimated commission income based on mobile phone data, and the assessment was completed. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to the assessee's non-response to notices.
What were the issues?
Whether to set aside an ex-parte order of CIT(A) and remit the case for de novo consideration when the assessee failed to respond to notices due to a misunderstanding.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
ORDER PER BENCH
These are the seven appeals filed by the assessee challenging the common order of the Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru dated 11/02/2025 in respect of the A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2021-22.
All these appeals are related to the same assessee and the issue involved in all the appeals are similar and therefore we decided to take up all the appeals together and pass a common order for the sake of convenience. to 473/Bang/2025 3. We will take up the appeal in for A.Y. 2015- 16 as the lead case and the result arrived in the said appeal will apply mutatis mutandis to the appeals in ITA Nos. 468 to 473/Bang/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2021-22.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is having business income and income from other sources and filed his return of income on 27/08/2015. The said return was processed by the CPC and accepted the said return of income. Thereafter a search action was conducted u/s. 132 of the Act on 10/12/2020 in the case of Shri Deepak Karsandas Thakkar and others and the residence of the assessee was also covered. Thereafter the AO issued a notice u/s. 153C of the Act and the assessee filed his return of income on 05/05/2022 u/s. 153C of the Act. Thereafter notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued for which the assessee submitted his replies through e-filing mode and manually. Based on the data found in the mobile phone of the assessee the AO had estimated the commission income received by the assessee and assessment has been completed. As against the said assessment order, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) had sent several notices for furnishing the necessary details in support of his grounds of appeal but the assessee had not responded to any of the notices and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. As against the said orders, the assessee is in appeals before this Tribunal.
5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that out of the five opportunities granted by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had sought for the adjournments on two occasions and further submitted that the assessee had mistakenly not viewed the other notices and therefore the Ld.AR prayed that the assessee may be granted an opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A).
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. to 473/Bang/2025 7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
We have perused the order of the Ld.CIT(A) from which we came to know that out of the five opportunities granted by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee responded to the two notices and sought for an adjournment. But the assessee had not viewed the final notice issued on 03/02/2025 and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) was having no other way except to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not responded to the notices issued by him. Even though the assessee had raised several grounds before the Ld CIT(A), the assessee had no opportunity to substantiate the said grounds. Therefore in order to render substantial justice, we accept the plea made by the assessee that the issue is to be decided on merits in accordance with law.
We therefore set aside the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in all the assessment years and remit the issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo consideration in accordance with law, after hearing the assessee in person. The above said finding given in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals in respect of A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2021-22.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th May, 2025.
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 →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026