VINOD JAISWAL,MHOW, INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 5(3), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN
Facts
The assessee's income tax return for AY 2010-11 was reassessed under section 147, resulting in an addition of Rs. 14,00,000 for unexplained bank deposits. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the assessee's first appeal on grounds of non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal was improper due to the migration of the appeal from a physical to a faceless system and subsequent bounced notices. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee full opportunity to make submissions.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution when procedural irregularities like appeal migration and bounced notices occurred, thereby denying the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 30.05.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Guwahati [“CIT(A), NFAC”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 11.12.2017 passed by learned ITO-5(3), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3)/147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2010-11, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 4
Vinod Jaiswal ITA No. 655/Ind/2025 - AY 2010-11
The background facts leading to present appeal are such that for the
AY 2010-11, the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of
Rs. 4,01,910/- which was assessed. Subsequently, the AO initiated
proceeding of re-assessment u/s 147 against assessee through a notice
dated 27.03.2017 u/s 148. Ultimately, the AO completed reassessment after
making an addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- on account of unexplained deposits
in bank a/c and thereby re-assessing total income at Rs. 18,01,910/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A),
NFAC dismissed assessee’s appeal on account of non-prosecution and
upheld the order passed by AO. Now, the assessee has come before us by
way of next appeal.
We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and carefully
perused the case record.
It emerged during hearing that the assessee filed first-appeal
consisting of Form No. 35 and other required documents to CIT(A)-II, Indore
Bhopal on 13.01.2018 under “physical mode” then prevailing. Thereafter,
the CIT(A)-II, Indore fixed hearing of appeal, in response to which the
assessee filed reply on 13.06.2019. The copy of assessee’s reply consisting of
13 pages, duly acknowledged by official seal of CIT(A)-II, Indore is filed as
“Exhibit-P/1” to Ld. AR’s Written-Submission. Subsequently, the proceeding
of first-appeal was migrated to Faceless System and the CIT(A), NFAC
passed impugned order dated 30.05.2025. Thus, it appears that the due to
migration of assessee’s first appeal from physical regime to faceless regime,
Page 2 of 4
Vinod Jaiswal ITA No. 655/Ind/2025 - AY 2010-11
there was a change from CIT(A)-II, Indore to CIT(A), NFAC and hence the
papers of earlier proceedings conducted by CIT(A)-II, Indore might have
missed attention or may not be available to the new CIT(A), NFAC. Further,
the Para No. 4.1.2 of impugned order shows that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has
issued notices dated 23.12.2020, 06.04.2021 and 28.07.2021 during Covid-
19 period and subsequently issued notices dated 23.04.2024, 25.09.2024
and 06.05.2025 after a gap of about 3 years. Further, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC
has himself noted that the delivery of e-mail of last three notices dated
23.04.2024, 25.09.2024 and 06.05.2025 got bounced. Therefore, in the
situation, the impugned order passed by CIT(A), NFAC dismissing assessee’s
first-appeal on the footing of non-prosecution is not a proper order and
requires a fresh adjudication. Being so, we accept the request of Ld. AR and
accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by CIT(A), NFAC and remit
this matter to the file of CIT(A), NFAC for adjudication afresh after
considering entire material. Needless to mention that the CIT(A), NFAC shall
give full opportunities to assessee to make submissions and consider
assessee’s submissions judiciously. The assessee is also directed to make all
submissions to CIT(A), NFAC without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
Ordered accordingly.
Page 3 of 4
Vinod Jaiswal ITA No. 655/Ind/2025 - AY 2010-11
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 27/02/2026
Sd/- Sd/-
(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated : 27/02/2026
Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 4 of 4
