MR. TEJRAJ JAIN (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (4), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits and had only confirmed the assessment order without discussion. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return claiming exemption for long-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made additions under section 68. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but due to non-appearance, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the issues on merits. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, dated 18.06.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. Besides challenging the issue on merits, the assessee has mainly challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
With regard to the delay of one day in filing the appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that immediately after the date of service of 2 appellate order on 21.06.2019 (Friday), 22nd & 23.06.2019 were closed holidays, which was reckoned in calculating sixty days’ time period and thereby determined delay of one day and thus, there was no delay in filing the appeal against which the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, we admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 06.11.2009 admitting an income of ₹.2,53,900/- claiming exemption of long term capital gains of ₹.10,33,200/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. On the basis of information received from the DDIT (Inv.), the Assessing Officer reopened the case under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and completed the assessment by making addition under section 68 of the Act, against which, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Despite issuance of various notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and hence the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues raised in the appeal on merits and prayed that the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to adjudicate the issues on merits by giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee for presenting its case before the 3 appellate authority. On the other hand, the ld. DR did not seriously objected to the submissions of the ld. Counsel.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the addition, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the appellate order, we find that despite issuance of various notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since, there was no response from the assessee after receipt of hearing notice, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. Except reproducing the grounds raised by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed anything about the grounds raised or adjudicated the issues on merits. Thus, we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits by affording one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee as prayed before the Tribunal.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026