SHIVA NARAYAN GUPTA,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were migrated from a physical regime to a faceless regime. Due to this transition, the initial documents filed by the assessee might have been missed or not available to the new CIT(A). Therefore, the dismissal orders passed by the CIT(A), NFAC were considered improper.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed several appeals against orders of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution or non-filing of required documents. The CIT(A) had dismissed these appeals on technical grounds after multiple opportunities were given to the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds without considering the reasons for non-submission of documents, especially in light of the transition to the faceless regime.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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 Bench:
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.
We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and carefully perused the case record.
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
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
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026