RAMESHWAR SONI,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's severe illness and inability to comprehend notices, which led to ex-parte orders and a denial of natural justice. Therefore, the interest of justice would be served by remitting the matters back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 to 2019-20. The appeals were filed with a delay of 34 days due to the assessee's health issues. The Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders confirming additions made by the Ld. AO, as the assessee was unable to comprehend hearing notices due to illness.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to the assessee's illness and subsequent denial of a fair opportunity to present the case warrants a remand for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Heard together (6 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
to 746/JODH/2024 Rameshwar Soni under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 *in short the “Act”+ date of order 21/06/2024 for AY 2014-15 to AY 20018-19 and for AY 2019-20 date of order 24/06/2024. The impugned orders were originated from the orders of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur [in short, the “Ld. AO”+, passed under section 147 of the Act, date of order 29/03/2022 for A.Ys. 2014-15, 2015-16 and A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 date of order 30/03/2022; for A.Y. 2018-19 date of order 29/03/2023; and A.Y. 2019-20 date of order 30/09/2021, order passed under section 143(3) of the Act.
All the appeals carry same nature of facts and have a common issue, so ITANo.741/JODH/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 is taken as lead case.
The registry informed us that the appeals are filed with a delay of 34 days. The assessee submitted a condonation petition and explained that the assessee was suffering from a health issue, so was unable to file the appeals within the due date. Considering the submission of the assesseedelay of 34 days is condoned andthe Ld. CIT-DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the appeals are admitted for adjudication.
4. The Ld.AR stated that the assessment was completed with addition on different issues amounting to Rs.76,235/-, Rs.53,549/-, Rs.21,521/- and Rs.16,705/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). But due to illness, the assessee was unable to comprehend that the notices of hearing on different dates were issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal order was passed exparte and the impugned additions were confirmed. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. to 746/JODH/2024 Rameshwar Soni 5. It is prayed that the Ld.CIT(A) issued the notices on different dates, but the assessee was unable to comprehend the notices due to his severe illness and that the assessee was also not conversant with the online notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR, therefore, prayed for restoration of the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication de novo. The Ld.DR has not made any objection against the submission of the assessee.
We have considered the prayer of the Ld.AR. we found that the assessee was unable to submit the evidence in favour of his claim. However, the appellate decision was made without considering the assessee's evidence, leading to a denial of a fair opportunity and a violation of natural justice. The assessee was deprived of the chance to present their claim before the 1st appellate authority. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub served if the matters are remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for consideration of assessee’s plea. We are not expressing any views on the merits of the case to limit the appellate procedure before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing for setting aside proceedings. On the other hand, the assessee should be diligent in set aside appellate proceeding for expeditious disposal of appeal.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing is allowed for statistical purpose. to 746/JODH/2024 8. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to the facts and circumstances in , the decision arrived at therein equally applies to these appeals mutatis mutandis.
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 Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
