MOHIT JAIN,INDORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INDORE

ITA 844/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 March 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the principle of natural justice and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee not appearing, which was attributed to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. The assessee also argued that the original assessment order by the AO was ex-parte for similar reasons. The Tribunal directed the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and participate in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mohit Jain, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order dated 29.03.2024 passed by the Assessment Unit (AO) under section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) decided the first appeal ex-parte because the assessee did not make submissions, despite the CIT(A) issuing notices to an incorrect email address (mohitj7000@gamil.com) instead of the one provided by the assessee (mohit@shankeshwar.co) or the pre-existing one in the department's database (mohit79000@gmail.com). The assessee also argued that the AO's assessment order was ex-parte due to similar notice issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the CIT(A) is liable to be set aside on the grounds that notices for the first appeal were not served on the correct email addresses of the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as per Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order because the assessee did not appear, but this was due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address, not the one provided in Form 35 (mohit@shankeshwar.co) or the one in the department's database (mohit79000@gmail.com). The CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) by not adjudicating on merits and not providing proper reasons for the decision. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed with the assessee's submissions and prayer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Gaur, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.03.2026Pronounced: 20.03.2026

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 20.08.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.03.2024 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2022-23, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo

(Form No. 36).

Mohit Jain ITA No. 844/Ind/2025 - AY 2022-23

2.

Ld. AR for assessee submits that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →