SMT. JYOTI PARSHOTAM THADHANI,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GNADHIDHAM
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel prayed for the restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) file. Considering the facts and the undertaking of the assessee's counsel to be more vigilant and comply with notices, the matter was restored.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed against an order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which originated from an Assessing Officer's order under sections 143(3) r.w.s 147. The assessee's counsel contended that notices of hearing were not served, and an adjournment was sought due to the representative's ill health, but the appeal was dismissed without a proper opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) and whether the appeal should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
सुनवाई क� तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 15/05/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 15/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 14.01.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, on 20.12.2019.
At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during appellate proceedings notices of hearings were not delivered on the assessee, therefore assessee could not appear before Ld.CIT(A) during appellate proceedings. Besides, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also stated that assessee could not appear before Ld.CIT(A), by seeking adjournment application, due to ill health of her representative with valid reasons. The Ld. CIT(A) without giving further opportunity to the assessee dismissed the appeal of assessee. The assessee was not allowed fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has a good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is given to assessee to contest his case before ld CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submits that she undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future and to file all necessary details and evidence on first date of hearing, before the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, Ld.Sr-DR relied on the order of lower authorities and stated that assessee was negligent in his approach, therefore, second inning should not be given and appeal may be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties and have gone through order of lower authorities carefully. I find that before me, the ld. Counsel of the assessee has made a limited prayer for restoring the appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons that assessee could not file evidence and his submission in response to notice of hearing of appeal and every time adjournment was sought for. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and undertaking by ld. Counsel of the assessee that assessee will be more vigilant in future in making compliance, the matter is restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merit, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Needless to direct that before passing order afresh, the Ld.CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant and to make timely compliance of the notice issued by Ld.CIT(A). With these directions, the grounds of appeal
of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/05/2025. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot �दनांक/ Date: 15/05/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant ��यथ�/ The Respondent आयकर आयु�/ CIT आयकर आयु�(अपील)/ The CIT(A) िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT गाड�फाईल/ Guard File
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026