ROHIT PREM CHHABRA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPT., MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not respond to notices, the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasoned order. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to be diligent.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex-parte without substantial discussion on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without substantial discussion on merits?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2017- 18/10297102 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2018-19, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte.
Rohit Prem Chhabra 2. Briefly stating, assessee did not file any return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. However, on the basis of the information available in the system, learned assessing officer passed assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and assessed total income at Rs. 1,78,40,490/- (consideration of Rs. 1,78,20,000/- on sale of immovable property and Rs. 20,490/- as interest income). Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte.
Appellant assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the aforesaid additions ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The adjournment application moved on behalf of the assessee was rejected. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for the parties.
Learned AR has submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte by learned CIT(A) in violation of the principles of natural justice without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. prayed to set aside the impugned order.
Learned DR has supported the impugned order.
We notice that learned CIT(A) issued notices to the appellant assessee for the hearing on three different occasions, however, the appellant assessee did not respond thereof. Learned CIT(A) was thus compelled to pass ex-parte impugned order in such circumstances. However, it is further noticed that learned CIT(A) has passed ex-parte impugned order without any substantial discussion on the merits of the case, whereas Rohit Prem Chhabra learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford opportunity to the assessee and restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms for statistical purpose. Impugned order dated 20.09.2024 is set aside. Order pronounced on 06.01.2025.
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 →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026