MITALBEN RAHULKUMAR SHAH ,ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 ANAND, ANAND
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not complied with notices from either the CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The assessee is directed to comply with the AO's notices, with a warning that failure to do so could lead to penalty proceedings.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-maintainability due to the assessee's repeated failure to respond to notices. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal on a wrong ground and that the assessment order was invalid due to improper service of notice.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) validly dismissed the appeal for non-maintainability due to non-compliance, and whether the assessment order was bad in law due to improper service of notice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR
Date of hearing : 03.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 04.03.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. Page No 2
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
(1) Under the facts and circumstances of case Ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on wrong ground of limited. He ought to have decided the matter on merits as mentioned in statement of facts.
(2) In absence of proper service of notice Assessment Order is bad in law.
3. On going through the record, I find that notices u.s.250 of the Act were issued on 09.11.202, 15.03.2024, 29.05.2024 and 10.06.2024 requesting the assessee to submit certain details/clarification/explanation. However, in pursuance to the same the assessee failed to submit any reply. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that assessee failed to give the sufficient reason for condonation of delay in fling the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, as not maintainable. I also find that assessee has not complied even before the Assessing Officer, hence, in the interest of justice the matter is remanded to Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer failing which the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceeding as per the provisions of the Act.
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
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
