KOVID AMBODIYA,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W1(1), UJJAIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 826/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 December 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found the assessee's appeal seriously defective, as it conflicted with the nature of the order appealed before the CIT(A) (assessment vs. penalty). Additionally, the appeal form was unsigned, contained conflicting details, and the assessee failed to appear before any of the tax authorities. The tribunal dismissed the appeal *in limine* without adjudicating on merits, granting the assessee liberty to file a fresh appeal or a rectification application u/s 254(2).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kovid Ambodiya, engaged in retail business, faced an assessment order u/s 144 for AY 2009-10 by the AO, adding Rs. 24,66,600 as unexplained money u/s 69A based on cash deposits. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices u/s 148 and 142(1) and stated that their first appeal to the CIT(A) was actually against a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), despite the Form 36 indicating an appeal against the assessment order.

What were the issues?

The maintainability of the appeal due to a mismatch between the order appealed against (assessment vs. penalty) at different appellate stages, coupled with significant procedural defects including an unsigned appeal form and non-representation by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 44AA,Section 271(1)(c),Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.12.2025Pronounced: 22.12.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal bearing DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069169300(1) dated 27.09.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2009-10, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2.

None appeared on behalf of assessee/appellant when the case is called for hearing nor any application for adjournment is filed. However, Ld. DR for revenue/respondent is available. Therefore, this appeal is being

Page 1 of 8 disposed of ex-parte to assessee after considering the documents available in case file and hearing Ld. DR for revenue/respondent.

3.

We re-produce below the document filed by assessee in this appeal:

Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo) – Page 2 to 4: Page 2 of 8 Page 3 of 8 Grounds of Appeal: Page 4 of 8 Statement of Facts: Page 5 of 8 CIT(A)’s order – Page 1: Page 6 of 8

4. On perusal of above documents, we find that the assessee has filed unsigned/unverified Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo). Further, in Column Nos. 6 & 7 of Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo), the assessee has mentioned the details of assessment-order passed by AO u/s 144 and in next Column No. 8, the assessee has mentioned “NA” against “If appeal relates to any penalty”.

Further, in “Grounds of Appeal

”, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 24,66,600/- made u/s 69A by AO in assessment-order, there is no challenge to penalty-order passed by AO. Further, in “Statement of Facts”, the assessee has stated all facts relating to assessment and there is no whisper of penalty-order. Further, the assessee has e-filed copy of assessment-order and not the copy of penalty-order. Thus, as per Form No.

36. (Appeal Memo), Ground of Appeal, Statement of Facts and Assessment- order filed to ITAT, the assessee is assailing the “assessment-order” passed by AO whereas the first-appeal disposed of by Ld. CIT(A) through impugned order was preferred by assessee against “penalty-order” passed by AO. This is clearly mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) in first sentence of impugned order re- produced above as also in the operative para 6 of impugned order. Thus, the impugned order relates to a “penalty-matter” u/s 271(1)(c) whereas the present-appeal has been filed against “assessment-order”. Therefore, the present appeal filed by assessee is seriously defective and non-maintainable.

Furthermore, there was a non-representation by assessee before both of the lower authorities i.e. the AO & CIT(A) and there is also a non-representation before us. Consequently, upon finding the grave defects as discussed, we

Page 7 of 8 dismiss this appeal in limine. As a consequence, no adjudication on merit is required from us. The assessee is, however, at liberty to file a fresh appeal or file M/A u/s 254(2), if advised.

5.

Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced by putting up on notice board in terms of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 22/12/2025

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →