RAJADHANI JEWELLERS,WAYANAD vs. ITO, WARD 1, KALPETTA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the 25-day delay. Recognizing that both lower authorities' orders were ex parte and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh disposal, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee to cooperate. The stay petition was dismissed as infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex parte order of the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19, which itself confirmed an ex parte order of the AO. There was a 25-day delay in filing the appeal, for which the assessee sought condonation, stating non-receipt of hearing notices from lower authorities except for one for which adjournment was requested.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and AO should be set aside due to lack of proper notice/opportunity, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
:Asst.Year 2018-2019 & SA No.45/Coch/2025 Rajadhani Jewellers The Income Tax Officer Kozhikode road v. Ward - 1 Mananthavady Kalpetta. Wayanad – 670 645. PAN : AAIFM9009K. (Appellant /Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :16.05.2025 Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R
Per George George K, Vice-President :
This appeal, along with stay petition, at the instance of assessee are directed against the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] dated 07.01.2025 passed u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2018-2019.
There is a delay of 25 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay supported by an affidavit stating therein the reason for belated filing of the appeal.
2.1 We have perused the affidavit filed by the assessee. We are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay of 25 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has passed ex parte order, since the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices issued from the office of the CIT(A) nor from the office of the Assessing Officer. The learned A.R. submitted that the notices stated to have been sent from the office of the CIT(A) has not been served on the assessee, except one, which the assessee sought for adjournment. It is prayed that in the interest of natural justice and equity the matter may be restored to the files of the AO.
On the other hand, the learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the both the CIT(A)'s order and the AO’s order are ex parte orders, since the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices nor filed written submissions. In the interest of justice and equity, we restore the appeal to the file of the AO for disposal of the appeal afresh, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is
Since the corresponding appeal is disposed of, the stay becomes infructuous, and accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 16th day of May, 2025.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
