SHRI VIPAN GUPTA ,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL- CIRCL;E, JAMMU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 388/ASR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: the learned CIT appeal. The Ld. AR undertakes to corporate in furnishing all the information may be required by the learned CIT appeal for the adjudication of the appeal on the issue raised by the assessee.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the appeal summarily without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and considering the case on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 05.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18, which had summarily dismissed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A)'s order emanated from an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in a summary manner without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Hearing: 24.09.2025Pronounced: 26.09.2025

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-5, Ludhiana, [Hereinafter referred to as “the CIT appeal”] dated 05.10.2023 which has emanated from the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jammu.

2.

Having heard both both the sides and perusal of the record we find that the learned CIT appeal has rejected the appeal of the assessee in summary manner by applying MultiPlan India Ltd vide para 5 of the impugned order, as under:

“5. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. During the appellate proceedings, no compliance has been made and no submissions have been filed despite repeated opportunities. In this regard, reliance is also placed on following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) (ii) Estate of Late Tukojirao Hokar vs. cm 223 ITR 840 (M.P.) (iii) New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&l-I) (iv) CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another 118 ITR 461 (SC). Since, the observations of the AO have not been rebutted by the appellant, therefore, the additions made by the AO are found sustainable and the various grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are liable to be dismissed.”

3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Ld. CIT, (A) has passed the impugned order Under section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in haste and casual manner without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard in violation of the principles of natural justice. He requested that in view of the principles of natural justices, the impugned order may be set aside and remanded back To the file of the Ld. CIT appeal to adjudicate the matter afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assasse and considering the written submissions filed on the record and may be filed during the fresh appellate proceedings before the learned CIT appeal. The Ld. AR undertakes to corporate in furnishing all the information may be required by the learned CIT appeal for the adjudication of the appeal on the issue raised by the assessee.

4.

The Ld. CIT (DR) has no objection to the request of the assessee in the light of the principles of natural justice.

5.

From the record, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the rejected the appeal of the assessee in summary manner by applying MultiPlan India Ltd. In view of the principles of natural justices, we consider it deem fit that it would be just fair to set aside and remanded back the impugned order to the file of the Ld. CIT appeal to adjudicate the matter afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assasse and pass an speaking order on merits of the case after considering the written submissions filed on the record and may be filed during the fresh appellate proceedings before the learned CIT appeal. The Ld. AR undertakes to corporate to furnish all the information may be required by the learned CIT appeal for the adjudication of this appeal.

6.

Accordingly, we restore back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to adjudicate afresh after considering the written submission and evidence of the assessee after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assesse.

7.

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 26.09.2025 in the open Court.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →