JAGRUTI BAKUL SHAH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(4), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities, leading to an ex-parte assessment order and subsequent ex-parte order from the CIT(A). The AO made an addition of Rs. 40 Lacs on a best judgment basis.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard despite previous non-appearances, in the interest of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
(िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Jagruti Bakul Shah ITO बनाम 115, Linghi Chetty Street, Non-Corporate Ward-11(4) / Vs. George Town, Chennai-600 001. Chennai. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.BCAPS-6292-M (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate) - Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms.R. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of an ex-parte order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 21-02-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 12-11-2018. The registry has noted delay of 159 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of the assessee. Accepting the same, we condone the delay and proceed for disposal of appeal on merits.
It could be seen that the assessee has failed to appear before any of the lower authorities. The Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of cash deposit for Rs.40 Lacs.
Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case and supply the requisite information forthwith.
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. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026