RAVINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the CIT (Appeals). The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 198 days due to the assessee not being informed of hearing dates and the ex-parte order passed by the CIT (Appeals). The assessee contended that the AO wrongly made an addition and applied incorrect tax rates.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT (Appeals) order passed ex-parte without informing the assessee is sustainable and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SH. SANJAY GARG
आदेश/ORDER
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.08.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Ludhiana [in short ‘the CIT (Appeals)] pertaining to 2019-20 assessment year.
ITA 574/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 2
The appeal is time barred by 198 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed wherein it has been pleaded that the concerned counsel for the assessee did not inform the assessee of the dates of hearing before ld.CIT (Appeals) and even passing of the final order. That the assessee did not receive the copy of the order in physical form. That the order, sent on e-mail of the consultant, was not forwarded by him to the assessee. The ld. Counsel has further brought my attention to the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order of the CIT (Appeals). He has further submitted that even a perusal of the impugned order also reveals that the same has not been passed by the ld.CIT (Appeals) on merits, rather the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for want of prosecution.
2.1 As per the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act read with Income Tax Rules, even in case the assessee did not participate in the appellate proceedings before the CIT (Appeals), the ld.CIT (Appeals) was supposed to pass the order on merits. On the other hand the assessee has explained that he was not aware of the passing of the order, resulting into the ex-parte order of the ld.CIT
ITA 574/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 3 (Appeals) and delay of 198 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.
The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the ld.CIT (Appeals). The assessee has pleaded that the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) has wrongly made the addition of Rs.1,20,000/- and has further applied the rate of tax as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act on income of Rs.9,70,000/- whereas, the normal tax rate was required to be applied on the said income of Rs.9,70,000/-.
After considering the rival submissions and going through the record, I am of the view that interest of justice will be well served if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the ld.CIT (Appeals), however, subject to payment of a reasonable cost which I assess at Rs.5000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister Relief Fund. Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld.CIT (Appeals) for decision afresh, but subject to the condition that the assessee will deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund and ITA 574/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 4 furnish the evidence/receipt of such deposit before the ld.CIT (Appeals).
The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 07 t h November,2025.
More judgments on Section 115BBE
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026