UDAY PANJABRAO DHOK,AMRAVATI vs. DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CICLE 1 (2) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 132/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee admitted to non-compliance, it was due to an inadvertent mistake. The Tribunal inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo adjudication, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of ₹5 lakh. The assessee claimed to have not received notices due to inadvertent mistake and/or miscommunication.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case after an ex-parte order was passed due to alleged non-receipt of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Nanwani
For Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 18/01/2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, for the assessment year 2017–18.

2.

From the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), it appears that the learned CIT(A), during the first appellate proceedings, had issued four notices to the assessee which remained

2 Uday Panjabrao Dhok ITA no.132/Nag./2025 to be complied with and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) was constrained to pass ex–parte order, by confirming the addition of ` 5 lakh, made by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 22/03/2022, passed under section 147 r/w section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act").

3.

The assessee has claimed that due to inadvertent mistake and/or miscommunication, the assessee could not receive the notices issued by the learned CIT(A), however, still the assessee admit his mistake for not complying with the notices and, therefore, praying for one last and final opportunity to substantiate his claim.

4.

On the contrary, the learned Departmental Representative refuted the submissions so made by the assessee.

5.

Having heard both the parties and giving thoughtful consideration to the material available on record and the issue involved and non–compliance by the assessee for inadvertent mistake, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and remand the entire matter back to the file of the learned CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Suffice to say, the learned Ld. Commissioner shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file the relevant submissions/documents. It is clarified that, in case,

3 Uday Panjabrao Dhok ITA no.132/Nag./2025 subsequent default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. In view of our directions as above, the adjournment application filed by the assessee becomes infructuous, hence the same is dismissed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/06/2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →