SHIVA NARAYAN GUPTA,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 703/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 January 2026AY 1999-20006 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were to be allowed. The reasoning was based on the fact that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals on technical grounds without a proper appreciation of the facts and submissions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds of appeal specifically challenged the dismissal for want of documents that were allegedly already submitted, and the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings. Since the revenue did not present any arguments or counter-contentions, and the assessee's primary grievance was the procedural dismissal by the CIT(A), the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea. The operative direction was to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remand the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal explicitly left undecided any substantive issues related to the assessment itself, as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shiva Narayan Gupta, filed eleven appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, for Assessment Years (AYs) 1996-97 to 2002-03 and 2004-05 to 2007-08. These appeals were against eleven separate orders dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. The CIT(A) orders arose from assessment orders dated 29.03.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1), Indore, under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's representative and the revenue's representative agreed that the grounds, facts, and issues in all appeals were identical. The assessee's grounds of appeal included the CIT(A) erroneously treating the appeal as defective and dismissing it for want of documents, the reassessment proceedings being bad in law and void ab initio, and the CIT(A) failing to consider the assessee's facts and submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal as defective and dismissing it for want of documents already submitted, contrary to the facts and submissions of the appellant, and whether the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and void ab initio, as argued by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds, specifically for want of documents that had already been submitted. The assessee also contended that the entire reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were bad in law and void ab initio. The assessee relied on the fact that documents were submitted on 28.04.2014 and that the CIT(A) failed to consider the facts and submissions made. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

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 Shashank Sharma, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.01.2026Pronounced: 13.01.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per Bench:

1.

This bunch of eleven (11) appeals filed by assessee for Assessment-Years [“AYs”] 1996-97 to 2002-03 & 2004-05 to 2007-08 is directed against eleven (11) separate orders of first-appeals, all dated 17.06.2025 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A), NFAC”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders dated 29.03.2014

Page 1 of 6 to 707 & 703 to 704/Ind/2025 A Ys:1996-1997 to 1998-99 & 1999-2000 to 2000-01 & & 717, 718 to 721/Ind/2025 A Ys:2001-02 & 2002-03, 2004-05 to 2007-08 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3)/147 of Income-tax Act, 1961.

2.

We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and carefully perused the case record.

3.

Learned Representatives of both sides are ad idem that the grounds raised by assessee in all these appeals and the underlying facts/issues involved are identical, therefore these appeals are disposed of by this single order for the sake of brevity and convenience. For the sake of reference, the grounds raised in first appeal of AY 1996-97 are re-produced below:

“1.That the Id. CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal defective and dismissed on want of documents already submitted on 28.04.2014. 2.That the Id. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the entire reassessment proceedings are bad in law and void ab initio. 3.That the Id. CIT (A) erred in not considering the facts and submission of the appellant and dismissed the case on technical grounds. 4.That the appellant craves leave to alter, amend, delete, add OR modify any ground of appeal

.”

4. Ld. AR for assessee invited our attention to the order of first-appeal being passed by CIT(A) for AY 1996-97 reading as under and submitted that in all matters, similar order has been passed:

Page 2 of 6 to 707 & 703 to 704/Ind/2025 A Ys:1996-1997 to 1998-99 & 1999-2000 to 2000-01 & & 717, 718 to 721/Ind/2025 A Ys:2001-02 & 2002-03, 2004-05 to 2007-08

Page 3 of 6 to 707 & 703 to 704/Ind/2025 A Ys:1996-1997 to 1998-99 & 1999-2000 to 2000-01 & & 717, 718 to 721/Ind/2025 A Ys:2001-02 & 2002-03, 2004-05 to 2007-08

5.

Thereafter it emerged, on further discussions and perusal of case record, that the assessee filed requisite documents of first-appeal (Form No. 35, Grounds of Appeal, Statement of Facts, etc.) to CIT(A), Indore on 28.04.2014 under “physical mode” then prevailing [copies of the documents so filed are placed in case file]. Subsequently, the proceeding of first-appeal

Page 4 of 6 to 707 & 703 to 704/Ind/2025 A Ys:1996-1997 to 1998-99 & 1999-2000 to 2000-01 & & 717, 718 to 721/Ind/2025 A Ys:2001-02 & 2002-03, 2004-05 to 2007-08 was migrated to Faceless System and the CIT(A), NFAC passed impugned orders under Faceless System. Therefore, due to migration of assessee’s first appeals from physical regime to faceless regime, there was a change from CIT(A), Indore to CIT(A), NFAC and hence the papers filed by assessee under physical mode to CIT(A), Indore might have missed attention or may not be available to the new CIT(A), NFAC. Therefore, in the situation, the impugned orders passed by CIT(A), NFAC dismissing assessee’s first-appeals on the footing of non-prosecution and also on the footing of non-filing of requisite documents (Form No. 35, Grounds of Appeal, Statement of Facts, Assessment Order, etc.) are not proper. Faced with this situation, we set aside the impugned orders passed by CIT(A), NFAC and remit all these matters to the file of CIT(A), NFAC for adjudication afresh after giving fresh opportunities to assessee. The Ld. AR for assessee acknowledged in open court that the assessee shall avail those opportunities; re-file the copies of documents as may be required by CIT(A), NFAC and also make a full representation to CIT(A), NFAC without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Ordered accordingly.

Page 5 of 6 to 707 & 703 to 704/Ind/2025 A Ys:1996-1997 to 1998-99 & 1999-2000 to 2000-01 & & 717, 718 to 721/Ind/2025 A Ys:2001-02 & 2002-03, 2004-05 to 2007-08 6. Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 13/01/2026

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →