PREETAM JAISWAL,INDORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JHABUA, JHABUA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 315/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 February 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in view of the submissions of both parties and upholding the principle of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by restoring the matter. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier ex-parte order. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the earlier order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Preetam Jaiswal, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, against an order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order dated 24.12.2018 passed by the Income-Tax Officer, Jhabua, under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee's returned income was Rs.14,60,790/-, but the Assessing Officer (AO) determined the income at Rs.95,03,391/-, making additions of Rs.80,42,601/-. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the appeal on merits. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity of being heard and did not adjudicate the appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving a proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as per principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee's requests for adjournment and that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee expressed willingness to make a proper representation if an opportunity is granted and prayed for a remand. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed with the assessee's prayer for remand but requested a direction for the assessee to represent their case diligently before the CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 145(3),Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Gaur, 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.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal bearing DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071816101(1) dated 02.01.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 24.12.2018 passed by learned ITO, Jhabua [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

2. Ld. AR for assessee submits that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. He further submits that the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions but the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Page 3 of 5 AY 2016-17 Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. Referring to Para 4.1 of impugned order, Ld. AR demonstrates that the CIT(A) has given four opportunities on 29.01.2021, 10.08.2022, 17.08.2022 and 23.08.2022. The assessee filed adjournment request against hearing fixed on 23.08.2022 which the CIT(A) granted. But thereafter the CIT(A) fixed next hearing after two years’ period on 13.12.2024 which the assessee missed to attend. Therefore, there occurred non-representation before CIT(A). Ld. AR acknowledges that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to CIT(A) for an apt adjudication.

3. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

4. In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of CIT(A), we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A)

Page 4 of 5 AY 2016-17 and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

5.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 06.02.2026.

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →