Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against a consolidated order of the CIT(A), which stemmed from an assessment order passed under Section 153C/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were filed for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-representation. Similar to previously remanded cases, the present matters were also remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment years should be set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's non-representation?
Sections Cited
153C, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per Bench:
The captioned two (2) appeals for Assessment-Years [“AY”] 2017-18 & 2018- 19 have been filed by assessee against a single consolidated order of first appeal dated 25.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of a consolidated assessment-order dated 03.03.2021 passed by learned DCIT-Central-I, Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 153C/144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”].
Prasam Rakesh Choudhary & 529/Ind/2025 – AYs: 2017-18 & 2018-19 2. Ld. AR for assessee made a straightforward submission that the AO passed a consolidated order of assessment for seven (7) AYs 2013-14 to 2019-20 u/s 153C/144 pursuant to search proceedings. Against such order, the assessee filed seven (7) first-appeals to CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) passed a separate order of first-appeal dated 14.06.2024 in the matter of five (5) AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 & 2019-20 and the assessee filed next appeals to ITAT, Indore bench in to 599/Ind/2024. The ITAT has already decided those appeals vide order dated 08.05.2025 and remanded matters to CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. However, for remaining two (2) AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19, the first-appeals were decided by CIT(A) though a separate order dated 25.03.2025 and this new order of CIT(A) is impugned by assessee in present appeals. Therefore, the present matters should also be remanded back to CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. Ld. AR narrated that the earlier order dated 14.06.2024 passed by CIT(A) for five (5) assessment years and the presently impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by CIT(A) for two (2) years are identical/similar in as much as both orders were passed by CIT(A) ex-parte to assessee due to non-representation and in both cases, there was a necessity of meritorious disposal of first- appeal by CIT(A).
Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that these cases emanate from search proceedings but the assessee has not responded to both of the lower-authorities in response to statutory notices issued by them. He emphasized that when the lapses are attributable to assessee, the assessee
Prasam Rakesh Choudhary & 529/Ind/2025 – AYs: 2017-18 & 2018-19 does not deserve any sympathy. However, he left the matter to wisdom of bench if the bench deems it fit to remand these matters to CIT(A). He, however, requests the bench to direct the assessee to ensure participation before CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
We have considered rival submissions of both sides and carefully perused the orders of lower-authorities. We find that the CIT(A) has passed presently impugned order ex-parte to assessee due to non-prosecution. We further find that the AO passed a consolidated order of seven (7) assessment years and the CIT(A) has passed two separate orders, one dated 14.06.2024 for five (5) assessment years and other one which is presently impugned order dated 25.03.2025 for two (2) assessment years. We have already remanded cases of five (5) assessment years to CIT(A) for a meritorious adjudication. Since the presently impugned order qua two (2) assessment years is also ex-parte, we are inclined to remand these matters also to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after hearing assessee, subject to payment of cost by assessee as ordered in next Para. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunities of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Prasam Rakesh Choudhary & 529/Ind/2025 – AYs: 2017-18 & 2018-19 5. However, we take note of Para 1.1 of order of CIT(A) wherein the CIT(A) has noted the opportunities of hearings given to assessee on 07.04.2022, 27.10.2023, 12.12.2024, 13.01.2025 & 24.03.2025 and the assessee had remained non-compliant on those dates. The records also show that the assessee filed earlier bunch of five (5) appeals being to 599/Ind/2024 to ITAT on 12.08.2024. That means, on one hand the assessee was pursuing appeals before ITAT against first order dated 14.06.2024 passed by CIT(A) but on other hand the assessee remained non- compliant before CIT(A) during proceeding dealt by presently impugned order dated 24.03.2025. This shows the assessee’s lethargy in prosecuting present appeals before CIT(A). Therefore, to offset the revenue’s efforts and also make the assessee obedient to statutory proceedings, we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per year in present two (2) matters to be paid by assessee to Income-tax Department through a suitable challan.
The assessee shall submit paid challans to CIT(A) during proceedings.
Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced by putting up on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 22/12/2025