SHIVRATAN MOTILALJI RATHI HUF,INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INDIA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the initial assessment orders and the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Given no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against assessment orders that were passed ex-parte. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals because the assessee did not file returns and pay advance tax as required by Section 249(4)(b) of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeals should be remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, given that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 147,Section 69,Section 249(4)(b),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned two appeals pertaining to the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2011-12 at the instance of assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 21.10.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) which inturn are arising out of the respective Assessment orders.
When the appeals were called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of these appeals with the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee.
At the outset, we find that ld. Assessing Officers’ in the exparte orders passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act made addition of Rs.41,19,438/- and Rs.11,71,392/- respectively for the assessment years under appeal as undisclosed investment u/s.69 of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) without admitting the appeals dismissed the appeals of the assessee for both the years on the ground that the “assessee has not filed the return of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax liability invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act”.
Now the assessee has approached the Tribunal against the impugned orders passed by the ld.CIT(A).
After hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the record placed before us, we find that the Assessment orders as well as the First Appellate Orders for both the assessment years under consideration have been passed exparte qua the assessee as there was no participation by the assessee in the proceedings before the ld.CIT(A). Considering the totality of the facts of the case and there being no objection from the ld. Departmental Representative for remanding the issues on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, we in the interest of justice deem it proper to give one more opportunity to the assessee. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues on merits for both the years under appeal are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A). Assessee is directed to provide proper email id to the department for receiving the hearing notices from the ITBA portal and the assessee HUF is at liberty to file any evidences as it deems expedient. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the ld.CIT(A) are set aside both the assessment years under appeal and effective ground of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 14th day of February, 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 →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026