S-241 THIRUMALATPATTY PACGS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAMAKKAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without the assessee's participation. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a cooperative credit society, failed to file its income tax return for AY 2019-20. Despite notices, it did not participate in assessment proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order by the AO. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appeal orders passed without the assessee's participation should be set aside and the case remanded for fresh assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Tin Box Company v. CIT624 citing249 ITR 216 · 2001 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 05.07.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18.
:-2-: ITA. No: 2154/Chny/2024
At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee took us through the exparte order of the AO dated 18.01.2024 which has been passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act, wherein the assessee is a primary agricultural co-operative credit society limited, had not filed return of income for the assessment year 2019-20. As per the information available in RMS formulated by CBDT under RMS – Non filing of return of income, notices were issued to assessee but not complied with. The department had issued a notices u/s.148, 142(1), SCN u/s.144 on various dates to the assessee by providing opportunities to provide the details for assessment. However, the assessee neither filed the return of income nor furnished the details for assessment. Since, the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings, the AO passed exparte order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, with the available details / information considering the entire cash deposit of Rs.35,89,112/- and Term deposits of Rs.40,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and brought to tax. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC with a delay.
The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, even after providing many opportunities to the assessee by passing an order dated
:-3-: ITA. No: 2154/Chny/2024 09/07/2024. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a primary agricultural cooperative credit society and the AO and that of the Ld.CIT(A) have passed orders without the participation of the assessee and thereby prayed for providing one more opportunity by remanding the case to AO for denovo assessment.
Per contra, the ld.DR argued that the assessee was negligent and had not even filed a return of income even after issuing notices. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the materials available on record and orders of the authorities below. We note that the assessment order passed by the AO was exparte and the ld.CIT(A) also has dismissed the appeal without participation of the assessee in the appeal proceedings. Since, exparte order has been passed by the AO we deem it fit to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
:-4-: ITA. No: 2154/Chny/2024 Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.
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 →- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026