RUDIS DEVELOPERS,KHARGHAR vs. ITO, RANGE CODE-81, WARD-1 , PANVEL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's failure to appear and submit details. However, considering the prayer and the absence of specific adjudication on the issues, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remit all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Rudis Developers, filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the NFAC, which arose from an assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s.144B. The assessee had challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer but failed to appear or submit documents for hearings before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal, dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance, should be restored for fresh adjudication given the circumstances.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2019-20 is directed against the order dated 06.01.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 11.12.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s144B of the Act.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. It remains an undisputed fact that the impugned order is ex-parte and assessee failed to furnish any written submissions/supporting documents in respect of its grounds of appeal and both sides agreed that matter needs to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of all the issues raised.
We observe that assessee is a Partnership firm and assessment for A.Y. 2019-20 completed on 11.12.2023 u/s.147 r.w.s144B of the Act and additions of Rs.39,88,247/- made to the returned income of the assessee. In response to notice u/s.148, ld. Assessing Officer added Rs.24,40,280/-and income assessed at Rs.64,28,527/-. Assessee challenged the additions made by ld. Assessing Officer before ld.CIT(A) and also raised legal grounds challenging the validity of notice u/s.148 of the Act as well as re-assessment proceedings. However, when ld.CIT(A) issued notices of hearing fixing the date on 18.12.2024, 24.12.2024 and 03.01.2025, assessee neither filed any adjournment nor filed any details/written submissions resulting into the dismissal of appeal. However, considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and there being no adjudication ld. Departmental Representative for remitting all the issues raised to the file of ld.CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to remit all the issues raised to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is at liberty to adduce all the required submissions/evidences before ld.CIT(A) to substantiate its case. Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 14th day of August, 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.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026