ATUL SINGH PARIHAR,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KATNI

ITA 102/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 August 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not adequately followed as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to represent their case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee claimed to have submitted adjournment requests with genuine reasons. The appeal pertains to an addition made under Section 69C for the assessment year 2014-15.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) was justified without considering the merits and the grounds of appeal, particularly when the appellant claimed genuine reasons for non-appearance and submitted adjournment requests.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Addl./JCIT Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai dated 14.02.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. That the impugned order dated 14/02/2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)"] is illegal, erroneous, and bad in law.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits of the case and solely relying on the alleged non-appearance of the Appellant.

3.

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had sub

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →