RATNAKAR LAXMIKANT MANDHALE,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), SOLAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea regarding violation of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and decide on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee's representative claimed the CIT(A) was on leave on the hearing date and no subsequent notice was issued.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-7, Pune, dated 10.04.2018 relating to assessment year 2010-11 against order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The ground of appeal No.1 raised by assessee is against jurisdictional issue and the same reads as under:-
ITA No.1061/PUN/2018 2 Ratnakar Laxmikant Mandhale
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, without giving proper opportunity of hearing, the act being in violation of principle of natural justice, it is prayed that appeal may kindly be restored back for reconsideration by Learned CIT(A).
The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He admitted that appeal of assessee was fixed for hearing but on that date, the CIT(A) was on leave and thereafter, no notice of hearing was given to the assessee.
The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that the issue has been decided on merits.
On perusal of record and after hearing both the learned Authorized Representatives, the first issue which arises in the present appeal is against ex- parte order passed by Commissioner. The perusal of appellate order reflects that the CIT(A) talks about various notices of hearing and he also scans the acknowledgement for notice of hearing dated 11.01.2017. The plea of assessee on the other hand is that the representation was made by learned Authorized Representative for the assessee. However, the CIT(A) was away on leave and hence mis-match in representation. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, there is merit in the plea of assessee. Following the principles of natural justice, the matter is set aside to the file of CIT(A), who shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue on merits. The assessee is also directed to co-operate and appear before the CIT(A) and file evidences / explanations with regard to merits of additions made. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by assessee is thus,
ITA No.1061/PUN/2018 3 Ratnakar Laxmikant Mandhale
allowed for statistical purposes. We are not addressing the other ground of appeal.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 15th day of November, 2018.
Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 15th November, 2018. GCVSR आदेश की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-7, Pune; 4. The Pr.CIT-6, Pune; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे, एक-सदस्य 5. मामऱा / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026