RAJKIYA SAYUKT CHIKITSALAYA CHIKTSA PRABHANDAN SAMITI ,GOVT JINI HOSPITAL ROORKEE HARIDWAR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ROORKEE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee then filed a further appeal before the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment order and the subsequent dismissal by the CIT(A) were justified, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity for a fresh assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 04/03/2025 for the Assessment Year 218-19.
An ex-parte assessment order came to be passed on 04/03/2023 u/s 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed vide order impugned dated 04/03/2025. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perused the material available on record.
The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the A.O., and the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the orders impugned in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. The assessment order has been passed by the A.O. ex-parte and even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.
6. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
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 →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026