BHUPENDRA RAGHUVANSHI,INDORE vs. DCIT-ACIT-1(1),INDORE, INDORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to ensure participation without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee contended that notices for hearing were sent to incorrect or non-accessible email IDs of a previous counsel, leading to their inability to attend hearings and make representations before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without proper service of hearing notices to the assessee, violated the principles of natural justice and warranted a remand for fresh adjudication.
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
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 30.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Bengaluru [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.12.2019 passed by learned DCIT/ACIT-1(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Ld. AR for assessee submits that the CIT(A), while conducting first- appeal, has sent notices of hearing to e-mail address: dlsaraf32@gmail.com which belonged to assessee’s previous counsel Shri Dau Lal Saraf, CA who represented assessee before AO and also filed first-appeal. But, however, the previous counsel never informed the assessee about fixation of hearings nor made any representation before CIT(A). Further, the CIT(A) has mentioned to have sent email also to another email id: bstkissanmp@gmail.com which again did not reach to assessee’s knowledge. Therefore, the assessee could not attend hearings fixed by CIT(A), which has led to the passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A). Ld. AR further submits that the assessee is ready and willing to make representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication of the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first-appeal.
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.
Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to 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 ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek
Page 2 of 3 unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced by putting on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 30/01/2025
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
