BHOLARAM,BHOPAL vs. ITO-4(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, contingent on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The AO is directed to provide adequate hearing opportunities, uninfluenced by the earlier order, and the assessee must ensure proper participation without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) which had upheld an ex-parte assessment order by the AO. The AO, under Section 147 read with Section 144 for AY 2012-13, made an addition of Rs. 13,68,000/- for unexplained bank deposits due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed they resided in a small village and lacked knowledge of income-tax proceedings, leading to non-compliance at both AO and CIT(A) levels.
What were the issues?
Whether ex-parte assessment and appellate orders should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication when the assessee claims lack of knowledge of tax proceedings despite notices, leading to non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 11.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-4(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.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).
Today, this case was listed to consider assessee’s request for out-of- turn early hearing. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the impugned order is ex-parte and physical bench is running at present, therefore this case may be heard and decided in this Bench. Ld. DR for revenue did not object to assessee’s request. After hearing both sides, we deem it fit to grant hearing on today itself and dispose of the matter. Accordingly, the case is taken for final hearing.
Ld. AR firstly referred the order of CIT(A) to show that the CIT(A) has given four hearings but the assessee did not file any response to first hearing and thereafter sought adjournments in next three hearings.
Therefore, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order upholding AO’s order and dismissing assessee’s appeal. Then, Ld. AR submitted that the AO has also passed ex-parte assessment-order u/s 144 due to non-compliances of notices issued by AO. On perusal of Para No. 3 of assessment-order, it is found that the AO has issued notices to assessee through all three modes i.e. by e-proceeding, by speed-post and by hand. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee resides in a small village called “Bhouri” and does not have knowledge of income-tax proceedings, therefore the compliances could not Page 2 of 4 be made. He submitted that the AO has made addition of Rs. 13,68,000/- treating the deposits made in bank a/c as unexplained money due to non- representation only. He submitted that in the interest of justice, an opportunity should be given to the assessee by restoring the matter at the level of AO. He agreed that the assessee shall make adequate submission before AO.
Ld. DR for revenue agreed with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request that the assessee should be appropriately directed.
Considering above submissions, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication on merit, at the risk and responsibility of assessee and subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the assessee to Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The assessee shall submit receipt of same before AO. 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 ensure adequate 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 / by putting on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 03/02/2025
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
