SUBHASHCHANDRA R CHECHANI,JALNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that both the assessment and appeal proceedings were conducted ex parte. Therefore, to ensure fairness, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessment orders were passed ex parte under Section 144 r.w.s. 147. The appeals before the CIT(Appeals) were dismissed due to non-response to notices, with the assessee claiming inadequate opportunity.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing in both the assessment and appellate proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S.SYAL, VP :
These two appeals by the related but different assessees arise out of the orders passed by the CIT(Appeals)-12, Pune on 29-10- 2021 in relation to the assessment year 2012-13. Since both the appeals are based on similar facts and identical grounds, I am, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
Shorn off unnecessary details, it is seen that the assessment orders in both the cases were passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act making certain additions. Appeals were filed by both the assessees before the ld. CIT(A), who issued certain notices which remained unresponded. As a result of that, both the appeals came to be dismissed. The case of the assesses is that adequate opportunity of hearing was not granted by both the authorities. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances prevailing in the instant cases, wherein the assessment orders were also framed ex parte u/s.144 and the appeals were also disposed of in the absence of the assessee, I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned orders are set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct him to frame the assessments afresh as per law and after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29th March, 2022.
(R.S.SYAL) उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 29th March, 2022 Satish
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026