RESERVE BANK STAFF QUARTERS SCHOOL,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS WARD 4, CHENNAI
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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to file submissions and evidence. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the file of the A.O. for a fresh hearing on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed belatedly by 24 days, but the delay was condoned. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) passed an ex-parte order under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessing the total income at Rs. 43,80,730/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal upholding the A.O.'s order.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence and submissions before the Assessing Officer, despite a prior ex-parte order and dismissal by the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI HON’BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member):
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 24.02.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18. that the appeal has been filed belatedly by ‘24’ days and assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause for the delay. Having gone through the contents of the same, we find that cause for delay was reasonable, so we excuse the same and proceed to hear the assessee’s appeal on merits.
The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) passed an ex-parte order u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 10.12.2019, assessing the total income at Rs. 43,80,730/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued and also failed to furnish any cogent documentary evidence in support of his contentions. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the order of the A.O.
Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, the Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the assessee may be given more chance to adduce evidence and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.
Though we some extent concur with the submissions of Ld. DR, however, keeping in mind the natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be granted opportunity to file submissions and evidence. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of the A.O for hearing on merits subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) which shall be deposited by the assessee within ‘30’ days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before the AO whose shall proceed for hearing the denovo assessment on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with all evidence and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings on merits as per law. Legal issues are open. The ld. AR of the asssessee also assured us that the assessee will prosecute the case diligently before the authorities.
Order pronounced on 18th day of September, 2025 at Chennai.
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 Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026