ASHISH MAHENDRA CHANDIWAL,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JALGAON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from representing their case before the PCIT due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an order passed by the PCIT under Section 263. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT, but the Revenue was heard. The ITAT noted that the PCIT's order was ex-parte and passed during the Covid-19 pandemic.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT's ex-parte order passed during the Covid-19 pandemic was justified, and if the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-appearance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nashik (‘the PCIT’) dated 19.03.2021 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing.
We heard the ld. CIT-DR and perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned order passed u/s 263 by the ld. PCIT, we find that the ld. PCIT had passed ex-parte order on 19.03.2021. It also would reveal that the notice of hearing of the proceedings u/s 2 263 was initiated during Covid-19 Pandemic period. It can be presumed that the assessee could not represent the matter before the ld. PCIT on account of difficulties being faced Covid-19 Pandemic. Therefore, we are satisfied that the assessee is prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from representing the matter before the ld. PCIT. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in order to meet the ends of justice, the matter requires remand to the ld. PCIT for de novo consideration after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant. We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 25th day of August, 2022. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; "दनांक / Dated : 25th August, 2022. Sujeet आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.
""यथ" / The Respondent.
The Pr. CIT-1, Nashik. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब"च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026