DILIP MODI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1),INDORE, INDORE

PDF · subscribers

ITA 539/IND/2025Status: HeardITAT Indore04 December 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in view of the submissions made by both the assessee and the revenue, and having regard to the principles of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for adjudication afresh. The Tribunal noted that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by restoring the matter at the AO's level. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant, ensure participation in the hearings fixed by the AO, and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. Failure to do so would empower the AO to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dilip Modi, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, against the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi (CIT(A)). This order arose from an assessment order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the ITO-4(3), Indore, under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte, despite the assessee having filed two replies with supporting documents on 20.01.2025 and 18.03.2025. The assessee also argued that the original assessment order under Section 144 was passed ex-parte because notices were sent to an old address. Furthermore, the assessee highlighted that a similar investment addition was made in the hands of his mother, Smt. Chandrakala Modi, and that the CIT(A) had already set aside that matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order against the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13, despite the assessee's participation in the appellate proceedings by filing replies and documents, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as per Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-13, is vitiated due to the issuance of notices to the assessee's old address, leading to an ex-parte assessment and a violation of natural justice? 3. Whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering that a similar addition made in the case of the assessee's mother for the same investment has already been set aside by the CIT(A) to the AO for fresh adjudication? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte due to oversight, as the assessee had filed replies and documents. The assessment order under Section 144 was also ex-parte because notices were sent to an old address. The assessee prayed for the matter to be set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, citing the precedent of his mother's case where the CIT(A) had already remanded the matter to the AO for similar reasons. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue agreed with the assessee's submissions and prayer but requested a direction for the assessee to represent his case diligently before the AO and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Choukse, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 03.12.2025Pronounced: 04.12.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

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

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 03.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-4(3), Indore [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Ld. AR for assessee at first drew us to the impugned order of first- appeal passed by Ld. CIT(A) to demonstrate that the same has been passed ex-parte to assessee on the footing that the assessee did not participate in the proceedings of first-appeal whereas the correct fact is that the assessee filed 1st reply dated 20.01.2025 to CIT(A) wherein the details/documents required by CIT(A) were submitted and subsequently, the assessee also filed 2nd reply dated 18.03.2025 wherein the acknowledgement of 1st filing made on 20.01.2025 was submitted. The e-filing acknowledgements of 1st reply and 2nd reply filed by assessee, as downloaded from website of Income-tax Department alongwith the copies of documents filed therewith to CIT(A), are submitted as part of Written-Synopsis filed by Ld. AR. Thus, the Ld. AR made a straight forward submission that the assessee did participation in the proceedings of first-appeal and e-filed replies to CIT(A) but it might have happened that the CIT(A) missed assessee’s e-filings due to oversight and passed ex-parte order.

Ld. AR next submitted that the assessment-order was also passed by AO u/s 144 ex-parte to assessee and, therefore, in 1st reply dated 20.01.2025 filed to CIT(A) the assessee made a specific prayer to Ld. CIT(A) to set aside matter to AO for adjudication afresh. In so far as the reasoning of non-representation before AO is concerned, Ld. AR submitted that the notices were served by AO to assessee’s old address “M-214, Khatiwala Tank, Indore” whereas the assessee had already shifted to new address “23, Murai Mohalla, Grain House, Chhavani, Indore” as mentioned in Form No. 35. Ld.

Page 2 of 4 AR also pointed out one more fact that the AO has made addition of 100% of investment in a property in the hands of assessee and at the same time, also made 50% addition for the very same investment in the hands of assessee’s mother “Smt. Chandrakala Modi” who was a joint owner in the very same property. However, in first-appeal filed by assessee’s mother, the CIT(A) has already set aside matter to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication, copy of CIT(A)’s order dated 14.11.2024 in the case of assessee’s mother is filed before bench. Therefore, considering entire prospectus of the case, the present matter should also be remanded to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication.

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

In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO 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 and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 04/12/2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →