BARHATTAKAR SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-2, ITARSI, ITARSI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 583/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 February 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without a decision on merits, and that the AO's assessment order was also ex-parte. The assessee expressed readiness to provide necessary details and documents. The Tribunal held that restoring the matter to the AO would allow for a proper adjudication of the issues. The remand was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee was also directed to participate diligently and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of cost.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Barhattakar Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Raipur, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Assessment Unit of the Income-tax Department under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee's grounds of appeal before the ITAT included the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) without a decision on merits, and the confirmation of additions of Rs. 16,26,378/- on account of opening stock variation and Rs. 62,72,767/- as unexplained money under Section 69A. There was a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the appellant without deciding it on merits, thereby denying a fair and meaningful opportunity to present the case, as per Section 250(6) of the Act? 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,26,378/- on account of variation in opening stock without considering the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 62,72,767/- as unexplained money under Section 69A without considering the facts and circumstances of the case? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte despite opportunities given, confirming the AO's additions without adjudicating the grounds on merit as required by Section 250(6). The assessment order itself was ex-parte due to lack of details. The assessee has since collected necessary documents and is willing to present them to the AO if an opportunity is given. Therefore, the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue had no objection to a remand but requested that the assessee be directed to represent the case before the AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments and requested the imposition of a reasonable cost.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69A,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 N.D. Patwa, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 03.02.2026

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/250/2024-25/1075173594(1) dated 28.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 11.05.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

Barhattakar Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Raipur AY 2017-18 “1.The Id CIT(A) was not justified in ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the appellant, without deciding the appeal on merits, and that a fair and meaningful opportunity was not available to the appellant to present his case. 2.The ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,26,378/- on account of variation in respect of opening stock without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The Id CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 62,72,767/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.The appellant carves leave to add, amend OR modify any of the grounds of appeal.”

2. There is a small delay of 8 days in filing present appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case and the averments made by appellant in the application/affidavit for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387, wherein it has been held that the “technical considerations” should not prevail over the cause of “substantial justice”, we deem it fit to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 8 days in filing appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken for hearing.

3. 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

Barhattakar Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Raipur AY 2017-18 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 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.”. Ld. AR further submits that the assessment-order passed by AO is also a type of ex-parte wherein the AO has made additions for lack of details/documents. However, the assessee has subsequently collected all required details/documents and is ready and willing to make an effective representation before AO if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication.

4.

Ld. DR for revenue submits that he does not have any objection against remand but his request is to direct the assessee to represent case before AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Further, he requested the bench to impose a reasonable cost upon assessee.

5.

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 AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee and subject to a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid by assessee to Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The assessee shall submit a receipt of such payment to AO during proceedings. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an Page 3 of 4

Barhattakar Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Raipur AY 2017-18 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 AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

6.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned above.

Order pronounced in open court on 03/02/2026

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →