BHARATHI KUMAR,PATTUKKOTTAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THANJAVUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a denovo hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to afford proper opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and documents before deciding the appeal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-19. The assessee contended that proper notice was not given, preventing them from filing evidence and documents.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment order is valid when proper notice was not served to the assessee. Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the appellate authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Bharathi Kumar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.48E, Palayam, Thanjai Salai, Ward 1, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur. Thanjavur 614 601. [PAN: ASIPK 8327L] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri V. Alagappan, C.A., ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. M. Aswathy, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 16.08.2024 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The registry has noted delay of 51 days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay and reasons stated in condonation petition alongwith affidavit by the Assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") i.e., Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 23.02.2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 relevant to the Previous Year (PY) 2017-18. Assessee further challenged the ex-parte order of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) who proceeded ex-parte and confirmed the order of the AO on merits. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
Before the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the AO and ld.CIT(A) has not given proper notice as per section 282 of the Act hence assessee failed to file evidence and documents to substantiate his explanation regarding cash deposits. The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual defaulter in appearing before the appellate authority hence no lenient view is to be taken in this case and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the short intervals of notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and in the interest of justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also find that assessee has not represented before the ld.CIT(A) despite notices. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for denovo appeal hearing on legal issues as well as on merits. The Ld.CIT(A) shall proceed for denovo appeal hearing after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed disposal of appeal on merits as per law. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th day of February, 2025 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
