SHRI ARJUN R DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 28(1)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is mandated to pass an order on merits and not dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order for AY 2009-10 was heard. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without granting a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant, and whether the AO erred in reopening the assessment and making additions without considering the facts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM
O R D E R
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM:
This appeal by the assesses against the order of learned CIT-A dated 23.12.2016 pertains to assessment year 2009-10.
Grounds of appeal
read as under.: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making an addition of A.Y.2009-10 Rs.18,99,899/- on account of alleged bogus purchases, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in treating Rs.2,00,000/- as profit of business, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal.”
3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has contended that the addition confirmed on account of bogus purchases has been done by the AO exparte in the impugned order passed u/s 144 of the I. T. Act, 1961. Ld. Counsel contended that the order by the Ld. CIT(A) is also an exparte order and in the said order Ld CIT(A) basically dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to properly canvass the appeal.
4. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the record. I find that it is incumbent upon Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order on the merits. I note that it is not proper on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as Act mandates ld. CIT(A) to pass an order on the merits of the appeal before him and not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Be as it may I remit the issue to the file of the AO to consider the issue afresh. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has undertaken to suo moto appear before the AO within a period of two months from the date of this order. A.Y.2009-10 In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026