BHAVESH BHOOPENDRA PARMAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner failed to pass an order on merits. For a just and proper decision, the case is remanded to the AO, with the condition of the assessee depositing Rs. 3,300/-.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed an order regarding an addition of Rs. 5,04,185/- for unexplained investment in shares. The assessee made no compliance or submissions before the Ld. Commissioner and the assessment order was ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the case should be remanded for a proper assessment on merits, considering the ex-parte order and lack of compliance by the assessee?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 11/12/2024 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2020-21.
Admittedly, the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner in the appellate proceedings, initiated against the assessment order dated 23/09/2022 u/sec. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, whereby the addition of Rs. 5,04,185/- has been made as ‘unexplained investment in shares’ u/sec. 69 of the Act, except seeking adjournments, eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/ documents and therefore, the Assessee is not entitled for any leniency, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality as in the absence of documentary evidence has also mentioned by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order, the investment in the shares remains unexplained and even otherwise, the Ld. Commissioner failed to pass the order on merits. Thus, for just and proper decision and substantial justice and equitable relief, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of Learned Assessing Officer(JAO) being an exception because the assessment order is also exparte, however, subject to deposit of Rs. 3,300/- (Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred Only) in the Revenue Department under ‘other heads’ within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, suffice to say by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essentially required. In case of any default, Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is, accordingly, remanded to the file of JAO for making assessment afresh.
Order pronounced in open court on 27.09.2025.
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 →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026