UVEJ MOHAMMAD,BHOPAL vs. CIT APPEALS FACELESS, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 112/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 August 2025AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the AO to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and to pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant, ensure participation in hearings fixed by the AO, and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. Failure to comply would give the AO liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Uvej Mohammad, is challenging an order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Assessment Unit of the Income-tax Department (AO) under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee contends that the CIT(A) decided the first appeal ex-parte because the assessee did not make submissions, despite opportunities. The assessee claims the email ID provided to the CIT(A) belonged to their accountant, who failed to inform the assessee of hearing notices. The assessee also points out that they had participated in the assessment proceedings by submitting a partial reply to the AO on 23.09.2023 in response to a notice under section 142(1) and had requested an adjournment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the first appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the grounds on merit, contrary to the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which mandates a written order stating the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-submission of arguments, attributing this to the failure of their accountant to relay hearing notices. The assessee contended that their grounds of appeal required adjudication on merit as per Section 250(6) and that they had intended to participate further, as evidenced by their partial reply to the AO. The assessee prayed for a remand to the AO. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed with the assessee's prayer for remand but requested a direction for the assessee to represent their case before the AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 250(6)

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: Ms. Saniya Shakeel, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.08.2025Pronounced: 19.08.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 29.11.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 09.10.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Page 1 of 4 2.1 Ld. AR for assessee at first carries us to the impugned order passed by CIT(A) and submits that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. He further submits that the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions but the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act 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.”. He further submits that email id: auch67@gmail.com supplied in Form No. 35 belonged to assessee’s accountant who did not notify the assessee about any notice of hearing received from the office of CIT(A) which has resulted in non-prosecution by assessee.

2.2 Ld. AR next carries us to Para 2 of assessment-order passed by AO to demonstrate that the assessee submitted part reply to AO on 23.09.2023 in response to the notice dated 18.09.2023 u/s 142(1) and also made a request for adjournment in last Para 4 of reply [Copy of assessee’s reply letter is placed at Pages 20 to 23 of Paper-Book]. This show that the assessee participated in assessment proceeding and had intention to participate further. However, the AO passed ex-parte assessment-order u/s 144 on 09.10.2023.

Page 2 of 4 2.3 Narrating above facts, Ld. AR acknowledges that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before AO if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to AO for an apt adjudication.

3.

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

4.

Considering 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.

5.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 18/08/2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →