ANIL NAMDEORAO BAHADURE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR
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 noted that the issue of whether the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard was not denied by the Revenue. Considering the peculiar facts, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The original assessment order was passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had filed the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on 29/01/2018, which was decided after seven years.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided with proper notice and an opportunity of being heard before the passing of the impugned order.
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 05/12/2024 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [in short, “Ld.Commissioner”] u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2012-13.
In this case, the assessee being aggrieved against the assessment order dated 28/12/2017 u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer, filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on 29/01/2018, which has been decided after 07 years on dated 05/12/2024. From the impugned order, it is nowhere
2 ITA.No.62/NAG/2025 appears “as to whether any notice/opportunity of being heard has been given to the assessee or not”. This fact has not been denied by the ld.DR. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case specific to the effect that the assessee remained to be represented specifically in absence of notice, which the Ld. Commissioner failed to issue, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and for the just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, remanding the instant case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
