MESERS UJAGAR MAL,SAT PAL,NAKODAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice to the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return of income was processed, and the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made an addition of Rs. 5,98,960/-, which was later confirmed by the CIT(A) ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without proper service of notice on the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble & Sh. Ravish Sood
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Sh. Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA No.445/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/s Ujagar Mal Sat Pal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o Sh. Dinesh Sarna, Adv., Nakodar B-18, Vakil Building, Model Town Road, Jalandhar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABFU3914C Assessee by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Revenue by : Sh. Ankit Kumar Aggarwal, DR Date of Hearing : 11.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019
ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 16.05.2018 of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar.
The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) without considering the submissions of the assessee.
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 05.08.2014 declaring an income of Rs.4,46,560/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Tax Act. Later on, the case
ITA No. 445/Asr./2018 2 Ujagar Mal Sat Pal was selected for scrutiny. The AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs.10,45,520/- by making the addition of Rs.5,98,960/-.
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who passed the ex-parte order and sustained the additions made by the AO.
Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice for hearing was not served upon the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the ex-parte order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In his rival submissions, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee was non- cooperative and did not attend the proceedings whenever the case was fixed for hearing. Therefore, there was no alternative with the ld. CIT(A) except to decide the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) mentioned in the impugned order that the case was fixed for hearing on 08.05.2018 and the notice was issued on 23.04.2018. However, nowhere it is mentioned that the said notice was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, by considering the totality of the facts, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse.
ITA No. 445/Asr./2018 3 Ujagar Mal Sat Pal 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 17/01/2019)
Sd/- Sd/- (Ravish Sood) (N. K. Saini) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated: 17/01/2019 *Subodh* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026