ANIL BHAWANI,INDORE vs. ITO - 5(1), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 505/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 December 2025AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matter required revisiting by the CIT(A) and passing a meritorious order in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted the potential communication gap due to the transition from the physical to the faceless regime and the short notice for hearings. The Learned Authorized Representative acknowledged the assessee's readiness to make a proper representation. The Tribunal, in view of the facts, submissions, and the principle of natural justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an appropriate order. The assessee was directed to be vigilant, submit all required documents, and participate in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Revenue's representative agreed with the prayer for remand. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anil Bhawani, filed his return for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 declaring an income of Rs. 5,24,790/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,23,03,420/- under Section 68 by disallowing long-term capital gains claimed under Section 10(38), assessing the total income at Rs. 1,28,28,210/-. The assessee's appeal to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was dismissed. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the first round remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Subsequently, the CIT(A), finding no response from the assessee, again dismissed the appeal vide an order dated 30.03.2025. The assessee has now filed a second appeal before the ITAT against this dismissal order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution and non-submission of documents, especially in light of the transition to a faceless regime and the short notice for hearings, turning on the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that there might have been a communication gap due to the transition from the physical to the faceless regime, leading to the non-availability of documents. The short span between the hearing dates fixed by the CIT(A) also contributed to the issue. The assessee expressed willingness to make a proper representation if an opportunity was granted and prayed for a remand to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication. Revenue's contentions: The Senior Departmental Representative agreed with the assessee's prayer for remand but requested a direction for the assessee not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 10(38),Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 250(6),Section 246A

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

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.12.2025Pronounced: 16.12.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 30.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 20.12.2017 passed by learned ITO-5(4), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

This is the 2nd round of appeal before ITAT. The background facts 2. leading to present appeal are as under:

(i) The assessee-individual filed his return of AY 2015-16 u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,24,790/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1). Finally, the AO completed assessment vide order dated 20.12.2017 u/s 143(3) after making an addition of Rs. 1,23,03,420/- u/s 68 by disallowing exempted long-term capital gain u/s 10(38) claimed to have been earned by assessee from transactions of shares and thereby assessing total income at Rs. 1,28,28,210/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any relief. The assessee carried matter in next appeal to ITAT, Indore bench in ITA No.

487/Ind/2019 wherein the ITAT, vide order dated 11/12/2019, remanded matter to CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The 1st round ended here.

(ii) Pursuant to ITAT’s order, the CIT(A) resumed proceedings and posted assessee’s first-appeal for hearings but finding no response from assessee, the CIT(A) again dismissed assessee’s first-appeal vide impugned order dated 30.03.2025. Now, the assessee has again approached ITAT assailing the impugned order passed by CIT(A). Accordingly, this is 2nd round before ITAT.

3.

At first, we re-produce the impugned order passed by CIT(A):

4.

Thus, the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal by citing the reason of non-response of assessee as well as mentioning that the Form No. 35, Ground of Appeal, Statement of Facts, Copy of order appealed against, demand notice, etc. were not available to him or not uploaded by assessee.

However, we find that the proceedings of fresh adjudication, pursuant to ITAT’s order, have been conducted under Faceless regime whereas the Page 4 of 6 proceeding of first-appeal were originally conducted in Physical regime.

Therefore, there may be a communication gap due to transition from Physical regime to Faceless regime due to which the documents might have not been available to CIT(A). Further, the CIT(A) has fixed hearings of fresh adjudication on 03.03.2025, 19.03.2025 & 31.03.2025 within a very short span of time. Therefore, the case of assessee requires revisiting by CIT(A) and passing a meritorious order in accordance with the mandatory provision of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. Ld. AR acknowledges that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matter should be remanded to CIT(A) for an apt adjudication in terms of section 250(6).

5.

Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

6.

In view of facts and submissions of parties as noted above and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant; submit Form No. 35, Grounds of Appeal, Statement of Facts

Page 5 of 6 and any other document required by CIT(A) and also 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.

7.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced by putting up on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 16/12/2025

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →