ARSH BREAD AND BAKERY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed ex parte. The assessee sought stay of demand arising from these orders, which were passed under Section 147 r/w 144 and Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex parte dismissal of the assessee's appeals by the CIT(A) was justified and whether the stay applications should be granted pending a decision on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH FRIDAY NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
captioned appeals were challenging the ex parte order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) wherein the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal challenging the assessment framed u/s 147 r/w 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') as well as the assessee’s challenge to order of penalty passed u/s 271(1)(c).
The ld. AR submitted that in the interest of justice, both the appeals should be restored to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and in such a case, the stay applications would become infructuous.
The ld. DR had no objection to the appeals being restored to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A).
3.1 Accordingly, in view of the fact that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has dismissed both the appeals of the assessee ex parte without going into the merits of the case, we deem it fit to restore both the appeals to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) with a direction to decide both the appeals on ITA 6046, 6048, Stay 673, 674/D/2018 merits by passing a speaking order after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Accordingly, both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes.
3.2 Since the assessee’s appeals have been allowed, the above captioned stay petitions become infructuous and the same are dismissed.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while the stay applications are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th September, 2018.
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 →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
