NARENDRA SACHIN ENTERPRISES,LUCKNOW vs. ITO NFAC, LUCKNOW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s orders were passed ex-parte without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in the liquor business, filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer made significant disallowances on license fees and expenditures, and imposed a penalty. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals against these actions.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were valid without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
These two appeals vide and 667/Lkw/2024 have been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018-19 against the impugned appellate orders each dated 19/09/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068857969(1) and DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068859868(1) respectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
& 667/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 2
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee was engaged in trading of liquor business. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.95,140/-. The Assessing Officer processed the return filed by the assessee and passed assessment order dated 26/08/2021 under section 144 read with section 144B of the I.T. Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.27,71,185/- by making disallowance of Rs.19,26,000/- on account of unexplained license fees and Rs.7,50,045/- on account of disallowance of expenditures. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271A(1)(d) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.16,53,800/- was imposed under section 271A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the disallowances made and against the levy of penalty. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned appellate orders each dated 19/09/2024, dismissed both the appeals of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
During the course of hearing before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, none was present. In absence of any representation from assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative was heard and materials available on record were perused. On perusal of records, it is seen that the assessment order as well as the impugned appellate orders of the learned CIT(A), were passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. Further, reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. In view of the foregoing, both the orders of learned CIT(A) are set aside and the issues in dispute are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in & 667/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 3 accordance with law on the specific issues after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 14/11/2025)
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026