PRITI KAILASH VYAS,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD -5, AMRAVATI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 77/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the issue needed proper adjudication, especially in the absence of documentary evidence from the assessee to explain the nature and source of a certain amount. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. Commissioner due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed they were unaware of the notices and requested a last opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. Commissioner was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 16.06.2025Pronounced: 16.06.2025

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19/12/2024 impugned herein passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (Appeals), Panaji [in short, “Ld. Commissioner”] u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2014-15.

2 ITA.No.77/NAG/2025 2. In the instant case, the Ld. Commissioner in the appellate proceedings carried out u/sec. 250 of the Act, issued 03 notices as mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order, however, the Assessee eventually made no compliance and, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner on the basis of the material available on record and in the constrained circumstances, decided the appeal of the assessee as ex–parte and consequently dismissed the appeal of the assessee and affirmed the additions made by the A.O.

The Assessee before this Court has submitted that assessee was unaware of the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner and, therefore, lenient view may be taken and one last and final opportunity may be provided to the assessee, so that assessee can substantiate his claim.

On the contrary, ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee.

Heard the parties at length and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the issue remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of documentary evidence, which the assessee has failed to file and, therefore, Ld. Commissioner by observing that the assessee utterly failed to explain the nature and source of the amount of `6,25,000/– as well as assessee has not adduced any clinching documentary evidence in support of his contention and also failed to offer any explanation in this regard, affirmed the additions made by the A.O.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality as mentioned above, this Court, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however subject to deposit of token cost of ` 1,100/–

3 ITA.No.77/NAG/2025 (Rupees one thousand and one hundred only), so that the Assessee would become more vigilant in future, to be deposited in the High Court Legal Services Authority Bench at Nagpur within 15 days from the date of this order. Suffice to say the ld. Commissioner shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and to file the relevant documents and/or submissions which would be essentially required Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner accordingly. Appeal of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →