VINCENT & CO P LTD,TRICHY vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and did not discuss the case on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arose from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had decided the appeal without discussing the merits of the case, citing non-response from the assessee's representative.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) passed a valid ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ (SMC
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH
आदेश /O R D E R
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy, in vide order dated 27.12.2019. The Assessment was framed by ACIT, Company Circle 1, Trichy for the assessment year 2004-05 vide order dated 24.12.2009 U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
2 2. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte, passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
I have gone through the order of CIT(A), who first decided the appeal ex-parte but the CIT(A) has not at all discussed about the facts of the case on merits. The relevant adjudication by CIT(A) in Para 3.2 & 3.4 reads as under:- “3.2 Only issue in this case is regarding taxability u/s.115JB of the Act on book profits, which have been computed without including capital gains on sale of shares. This issue has been decided against the assessee by ITAT Bangalore [ITA 1659/1660/1861 & 1862/203] which has allowed benefit of indexation to assessee while computing the mat liability, as has been done in this case. The relevant extracts of this judgement as under: …… …… 3.3…… 3.4 AR of assessee, Mr. S. Sridhar, CA’s have not responded to notices dated 09.11.2016 and then again on 27.12.2019 and hence the matter is decided on the merits of the case.”
As the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and moreover nothing was discussed on merits, I deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. When these facts was pointed out to ld. senior Department Representative, he could not controvert the above stated position. In the facts and 3 circumstances, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh consideration.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose
More judgments on Section 115JB
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), KolkataITA 1076/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026