BHUWNESHWAR SINGH MARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO 1(1), BHOPAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to file a rejoinder and make submissions. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order considering these submissions.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order for non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-submission of a rejoinder to the AO's remand report. The ITAT noted that a related appeal against the assessment order was already restored to the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-submission of rejoinder without considering the assessee's claim of non-service of notices, especially when a related matter was already restored.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 15.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 27.08.2015 passed by learned ITO-1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 271(1)(b) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2007-08, the assessee has filed this appeal.
We have heard the learned Representatives of both sides and perused the case record including the orders of lower-authorities.
The AO has imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- for non-compliances of four notices issued by him u/s 142(1) during assessment-proceeding on 25.06.2014, 27.08.2014, 16.01.2015 and 03.02.2015 @ Rs. 10,000/- for failure to comply with each notice. Even the AO has passed penalty-order ex-parte assessee due to non-representation by assessee in response to the notice issued by AO affording opportunity before imposing penalty.
During first-appeal before CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the impugned four notices u/s 142(1) were never served upon him. Taking into account assessee’s claim, the CIT(A) sought remand report from AO in response to which the AO filed remand-report. Then, the CIT(A) forwarded remand-report to assessee for filing his rejoinder but the assessee sought adjournment. The CIT(A) thereafter dismissed assessee’s first-appeal by passing following order:
“5. The Remand Report furnished by the AO was forwarded to the appellant to furnish his Rejoinder vide letter dated 27.12.2023. However, the appellant has only sought adjournment of 15 days. The AO issued several notices and responded to the remand report that none of the notices were returned back. When this report was given to the appellant, he has not furnished his Rejoinder. Hence, it is assumed that the appellant is not keen to pursue his appeal.
As a result, the appeal is dismissed.”
Thus, the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal for want of submission by assessee to the remand-report of AO.
6. It is also noteworthy that the AO originally passed assessment-order dated 26.02.2015 u/s 144/147 for the reason of non-compliances by assessee to the notice u/s 148 and above mentioned four notices u/s 142(1) and the assessee filed first-appeal belatedly to CIT(A) against such assessment-order. The assessee claimed before CIT(A) that neither notices u/s 148/142(1) nor the assessment-order was served upon him which has resulted in delayed filing of appeal before him but the CIT(A) did not accept assessee’s claim and dismissed appeal for the reason of delayed filing.
Therefore, the assessee filed next appeal to ITAT against the order of CIT(A) which was registered by ITAT as and has already been disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2024 wherein the ITAT has restored matter to CIT(A) to re-visit claim of assessee and adjudicate afresh.
Therefore, taking into account the fact that the CIT(A) has passed impugned order dated 15.02.2024 being assailed in present appeal ex-parte assessee for non-submission of rejoinder to the remand-report filed by AO and also that the ITAT has already restored assessee’s first-appeal against original assessment-order to CIT(A) vide aforesaid order dated 26.07.2024, the present matter is also restored back to CIT(A) for giving one more opportunity to assessee to file rejoinder and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to file his rejoinder as required by CIT(A) and other submission, if any, which shall be Page 3 of 4 considered judiciously by CIT(A) without being influenced by his earlier orders in any manner.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1195/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1194/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1193/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Laxmi Narain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circle-20, New DelhiITA 4432/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Laxminarain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circel-20, New DelhiITA 4431/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
