MR. ARUDH MOHAN JADHAV ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance before tax authorities, resulting in ex-parte assessments and appeals. To provide a fair chance, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders and restore the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals challenging the common order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. The assessee did not appear before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) on multiple occasions, leading to ex-parte orders. The AO framed assessments u/s 153C and u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to the assessee's non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeals should be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication given the assessee's non-appearance before lower authorities, and if so, under what conditions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN
All these appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the common order dated 21-11-2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and relate to the Assessment Years (AYs.) 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. For the sake of convenience, we dispose of these appeals by way of this common order.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has not appeared before the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A). Under these set of facts, we prefer to dispose of these appeals ex-parte, without the presence of assessee.
2 Mr. Arudh Mohan Jadhav (batch)
We heard the Ld.DR and perused the record. The present assessments have been framed by the AO u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) on the basis of materials relating to the assessee, seized in the search proceedings conducted in the case of Pandhe Group. The assessee did not appear before the AO and hence the AO was constrained to pass the orders to the best of his judgment u/s. 144 of the Act. Though the assessee challenged the assessment orders by filing appeals before the Ld.CIT(A), yet the assessee did not appear before the Ld.CIT(A) also. We noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued notices ten times. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the orders passed by the AO.
We heard the Ld.DR and perused the record. We notice that the assessee did not appear before the AO as well as Ld CIT(A) and hence both the authorities have passed orders ex-parte on the basis of information available with them. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the Ld.CIT(A).
However, since the assessee was not appearing before both the parties and further no valid reason was cited before us for doing so, we are of the view that the assessee is required to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), which shall be paid to the credit of the Income Tax Department as „Other Fees‟ within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The cost is imposed to make the assessee serious in pursuing the income tax matters. 6. Subject to payment of the above cost, which shall be verified by the Ld.CIT(A), we set aside the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in all the years and restore all the issues urged before us in all the years to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee
3 Mr. Arudh Mohan Jadhav (batch) to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of these appeals. 7. In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026