INNOVATIVE ENGINEERS,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2601/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 March 2026AY 2023-24Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T.R.SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, taking into account the assessee's inability to attend the previous hearings before the CIT(A) and the Revenue's lack of objection, decided to set aside the ex-parte order. The matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity for a hearing on the merits of the case and to present all relevant material for a proper appellate order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte appellate order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)) for AY 2023-24. The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of various disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, specifically related to foreign travel expenses, interest and penalty under GST, and accommodation expenses, arguing that they were invalid. The assessee's counsel stated that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) despite three hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte appellate order passed by CIT(A) was valid given the assessee's non-appearance, and whether the disallowances of foreign travel expenses, GST interest/penalty, and accommodation expenses were correctly confirmed, thereby requiring a fresh hearing opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI T.R.SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Hearing: 05/03/2026Pronounced: 10/03/2026

PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the ex-parte appellate order dated 08/10/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “CIT(A)] arising out of the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

“1. The order passed by AO and confirmed by NFAC is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed.

2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs.857210/- on account of foreign travel expenses ignoring submission of the appellant.

3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs.302976/- being interest and penalty under GST ignoring R fact that same are compensatory in nature.

4. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 987926/- being Accommodation expenses ignoring submission of the appellant.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A), wherein three hearing notices were given from 04/08/2025 to 08/09/2025. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel requested one more opportunity be given and filed a paper-book claiming the details of expenses made by the assessee.

4.

The Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has no objection in setting aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A).

5.

Recording the above submissions of the rival parties and considering the paper book filed by the assessee running to 215 pages and in the interests of principles of natural justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain its case on merits and then pass appellate order in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say, the assessee should make use of this final opportunity and produce all relevant material before the CIT(A) to pass the order on merits of the case.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →