RAVINDRA KANTILAL CHAUDHARI,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, PUNE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, failed to file a return of income and did not appear for hearings, leading to an ex-parte best judgment assessment under sections 144 and 147 of the Act. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was also dismissed due to non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment order is sustainable when the assessee was prevented from complying due to reasons attributable to their tax practitioner and lack of knowledge.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
Assessee by : Shri Ganesh Bhoyate Revenue by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava, Additional CIT Date of hearing : 22.04.2025 Date of : 25.04.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order passed by Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 30.08.2023 which is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s.144/148 dated 03.12.2019.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. That the leamed Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 18,89,040/-, which are unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to law.
2. That the ex-parte order is bad in law as the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the notices due to negligence of Tax Practitioner, lack of knowledge of assesee related to Income tax laws.
3. That the ex-parte order is legally unsustainable and deserves to be set aside for fresh adjudication, considering the relevant facts and submissions of the Appellant.
4. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in computing the total income by making additions that are not supported by facts or law.
5. That the Learned ITO erred in making arbitrary additions in the assessment order without proper verification or appreciation of facts and documents.
That the Learned ITO has erred in making high-pitched additions, which are unjustified and excessive, without hearing assesses contention and supporting documents.
Relief Sought: The appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may: a) The ex-parte order passed under Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 be set aside. b) A fresh opportunity be granted to the Appellant to present its case on merits. c) Additions made in the ex-parte order be deleted or appropriately reduced. d) Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice may be granted.
At the outset the Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the impugned order as well as assessment order is ex-parte and requested for restoring the issue to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Ld. DR did not raise any objection.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 in the case of assessee who is an individual and has not filed return of income was scrutinized as best judgement assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act was passed. Even the assessee’s appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was also dismissed on account of non appearance on the given dates of the hearing. Ld. DR has not opposed the request of Ld. counsel for the assessee of restoring the issues to the file of Ld. JAO. We therefore set aside the impugned order and remit back the issue of impugned addition of Rs. 18,89,040/- to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication to be carried out in light of the details to be submitted by the assessee who shall be offered reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is directed to update the latest E-mail ID and contact details on Income Tax Portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise for reasonable cause. 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 25th day of April, 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 →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
