SAMTA DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. CIT APPEAL NEAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 259/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 February 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both sides, the orders of the lower authorities, the principles of natural justice and fair play, and noting that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matters back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh. The Tribunal held that the non-representation before the lower authorities was due to alleged non-receipt of notices. The remand is at the risk and responsibility of the assessee and is subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- per case to the Income-tax Department through a suitable challan. The assessee is directed to submit proof of payment of cost to the AO. The AO is instructed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant, ensure participation in hearings, and avoid unnecessary adjournments, failing which the AO is at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Samta Devcon Private Ltd., filed two appeals (ITA No. 258 & 259/Ind/2025) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, challenging orders dated 26.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. These orders arose from assessment orders dated 08.05.2023 and 30.05.2023, passed by the Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department (AO) under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 and 2016-17, respectively. The AO passed ex-parte assessment orders due to non-prosecution by the assessee. The assessee contended that notices were sent to an incorrect email address and that physical letters, though mentioned, lacked sufficient details for tracking. The first appellate orders were also ex-parte, with notices served via email within a short period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment orders passed by the AO under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are valid, considering the alleged non-receipt of notices by the assessee? 2. Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) are valid, given that notices of hearing were allegedly sent only via email within a short timeframe, preventing the assessee's representation? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that notices from the AO were sent to an incorrect email address (vikas459jain@yahoo.com) and did not reach them. While the AO mentioned issuing a physical letter via India Speed Post, the assessee claimed non-receipt and highlighted the lack of tracking details in the assessment order. The assessee also contended that the CIT(A)'s notices were sent solely via email between 17.10.2024 and 20.12.2024, a short period that prevented their attendance. The assessee expressed willingness to represent before the AO if given an opportunity and prayed for a remand. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue submitted that the assessee remained non-compliant before both lower authorities. However, the revenue acknowledged that the assessee filed appeals to the CIT(A) and the ITAT in time. The revenue suggested that if the matter was remitted to the AO, a suitable cost should be imposed on the assessee, and stricter directions should be given.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

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

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.01.2026Pronounced: 06.02.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

The captioned two (2) appeals have been filed by assessee challenging two (2) separate orders of first-appeal, both dated 26.01.2025 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders dated 08.05.2023 & 30.05.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 &144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14 & 2016-17 respectively.

Page 1 of 4 Samta Devcon Pvt. Ltd. & 259/Ind/2025 - AY 2013-14 & 2016-17

2.

Learned Representatives of both sides are ad idem that the underlying facts and issues of both appeals are similar. Therefore, in the discussions to follow, the facts of AY 2013-14 are referred and the adjudication made therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to AY 2016-17.

3.

Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the AO has passed assessment- order u/s 144 for non-prosecution by assessee but the notices were sent by AO through email to vikas459jain@yahoo.com which did not reach to assessee. He further submitted that although the AO has mentioned “Further a physical letter has also been issued through India Speed Post on 10.04.2023, however assessee has not furnished any reply till date” in assessment-order but the AO has not mentioned the details/number of speed post so as to enable the assessee to track the status. Ld. AR, however, stressed in open court that the assessee did not receive any such speed post.

Ld. AR thereafter submitted that the order of first-appeal is also ex-parte as the CIT(A) has served notices of hearing through e-mail only [Para No. 4 of CIT(A)’s order] and that too within a short period from 17.10.2024 to 20.12.2024 which could not be attended by assessee. Therefore, the non- representation before lower authorities occurred. Ld. AR, however, acknowledges that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before AO if an opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matter should be remanded to AO for an apt adjudication.

4.

Ld. DR for revenue submitted that the assessee has remained non- complaint before both of the lower authorities. He pointed out that the Page 2 of 4 & 259/Ind/2025 - AY 2013-14 & 2016-17 assessee has filed first-appeal to CIT(A) as well as the present appeal to ITAT in time. Therefore, in the situation, if the bench remits these matters to AO for a fresh adjudication, a suitable cost must be imposed upon assessee and also the assessee must be given stricter directions.

5.

We have considered submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower authorities. Having regard to the facts as narrated; the principle of natural justice and fair play and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matters are restored at the level of AO, we remand these matters back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee and subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- per case by assessee to Income-tax Department through a suitable challan. The assessee shall submit copy of duly paid challans to the AO during proceedings. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Page 3 of 4 Samta Devcon Pvt. Ltd. & 259/Ind/2025 - AY 2013-14 & 2016-17

6.

Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose, subject to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned above.

Order pronounced in open court on 06.02.2026.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →