BLUEFROG MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had specifically opted out of email communication in its Form-35 and was not physically served with a notice for the CIT(A) hearing. Consequently, the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to afford the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case and evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, Bluefrog Mobile Technologies Private Limited, challenged an addition of Rs. 4,98,26,305/- made by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2020-21 due to a discrepancy between turnover reported in Form 26AS and its profit and loss account. The CIT(A) upheld this addition ex-parte after the assessee failed to participate in the appeal proceedings, which the assessee attributed to not receiving proper notice.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was valid when the assessee was not validly served notice for the appeal hearing, thus denying the principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench
आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-
1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Bluefrog Mobile Technologies Private limited, 2-68, Kotha Paradesapalem Village, Near by UCIM Church, Chinagadilimandal, Madhurawada Rural, 5th Ward, GVMC, Visakhapatnam – 530041. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Visakhapatnam.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026