RUDVIN ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit and also that notices were not properly served. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) which sustained additions made by the AO. The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the request for adjournment, and proper notices were not served.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's request for adjournment and proper service of notices?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated, 20/11/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y. 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has passed the ex-parte order without considering the request of the assessee seeking adjournment for filing the reply. He has referred to para 4 of the impugned order and submitted that in response to the notices issued on 23/10/2024, the assessee filed the request dated 15/11/2024 seeking adjournment of hearing after 30/11/2024.
Page 2 of 5 However, the learned CIT (A) has passed the impugned order on 20/11/2024 without considering the request of the assessee. He has further submitted that the Assessing Officer has also passed the ex-parte order u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 when there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The learned AR has submitted that due to non-communication of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A), the assessee could not file the relevant details and submission and therefore, pleaded that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to file the relevant details and supporting evidences to be examined by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the learned AR has prayed that the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that it is a case of non-compliance on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT (A). Thus, the conduct of the assessee is very casual and negligent to the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A).
Having considered the rival submission and careful perusal of the impugned orders, we note that the Assessing Officer has passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 whereby an addition on account of estimation of income @ 8% on the total credit of Rs.10,81,13,292/- as turnover of the assessee and further addition of Rs.12,50,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposit made in the bank account during the Page 3 of 5 demonetization period. On appeal, the learned CIT (A) has issued 3 notices dated 30/01/2021, 15/10/2024 and 23/10/2024 but there was no response on behalf of the assessee and consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thus, it is clear that the learned CIT (A) has not decided the issues raised by the assessee on merit by a speaking order. Further, out of 3 notices issued by the learned CIT (A), one was issued during covid pandemic period and other 2 notices were issued within a period of one week in the month of October, 2024. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the conduct of the assessee, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) and remand the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication subject to a cost of Rs.2500/- to be paid to the Prime Ministers’ National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of this order. Needless to say, the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 282
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Mohd. Abrar, Bulandshahar vs ITO Ward 2(3)(2), BulandshaharITA 8343/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ram Chandar Jaisawal, Siddhartha Nagar vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 861/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Kavithak, Coimbatore vs Non Coop Ward4(3), CoimbaotoreITA 2258/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- All Indian Ski & Hide Tanners and Merchants… vs CIT(E), ChennaiITA 2115/CHNY/2026[2027-28]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2027-28
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- 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
