SANDEEP CHAGANLAL NIPANE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD -1(4), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 311/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 June 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the need for proper adjudication, decided to remand the case back to the Ld. Commissioner. This remand is subject to the assessee depositing ₹11,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order dated 18/03/2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal concerns Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee failed to provide necessary submissions and documents, leading to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the case should be remanded for proper adjudication despite the assessee's non-compliance, and if so, under what conditions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 17.06.2025Pronounced: 17.06.2025

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18/03/2024 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”) 2013– 14.

2 ITA.No.311/NAG/2024 2. Admittedly, the Assessee in compliance to the 05 notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner, except seeking adjournment in response to notice dated 15/02/2024, eventually made no response/compliance and, therefore, Ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances, vide assessment order dated 09/02/2022 u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act affirmed the additions of ₹ 10,00,000/–, ₹ 20,26,322/– & ₹ 65,000/– as made by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) u/sec. 69 & 69A of the Act respectively. The conduct of the assessee seems to be non-compliant as the Assessee failed to file the relevant submissions/documents and, therefore, the assesse as claimed by the ld. DR, is not entitled for any leniency. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality, as the issues involved in the instant case remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner specifically in absence of relevant submissions/documents, thus, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice and considering the non– compliant attitude of the Assessee, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of Ld. Commissioner, however, subject to deposit of ₹ 11,000/– (Rupees eleven thousand only) in the Revenue Department under ‘other head’ within 15 days from today.

3.

The Assessee is directed to comply with the notice/s and to file the relevant reply/ submissions and documents as would be essentially required for proper adjudication of the case. In case of subsequent default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

3 ITA.No.311/NAG/2024 4. Thus the case is remanded to the file of ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.06.2025. [ /- Sd/- (Narender Kumar Choudhry) Judicial Member Dated :17th June, 2025 vr/- Copy to

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →