BHAGCHAND RAMOLA ,TEHRI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TEHRI GARHWAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal found that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte, and the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds on merits. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the AO for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to produce documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte assessment order and the subsequent dismissal by the CIT(A) was heard. The assessee claimed violation of natural justice and had a good case on merits, producing new documents before the tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders violated principles of natural justice and if the assessee should be allowed to present evidence before the AO.
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 YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
(A.Y 2013-14) Bhagchand Ramola Vs. Income Tax Officer Village DharwalGaon, Ward 1(4) (5), Tehri Garhwal Chbam Tehri Garhwal Uttarakhand Uttarakhand PAN: AGQPR3061A Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. S. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/07/2025 ORDER
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 18/03/2024 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
An ex-parte assessment order came to be passed 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 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. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the assessment order as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) have been passed in violation of principals of natural justice. The Assessee is having very good case on merit. Further, the Ld. Counsel has also produced various documents before us and contended that the additions made by the A.O. which has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.
Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted hat the Assessee has not appeared before the lower authorities, therefore, the authorizes below have rightly passed the respective orders which requires no interference. Further submitted that the documents produced before the Tribunal are not part of the records, therefore, submitted that those documents cannot be looked into by the Tribunal, thus sought for dismissals of the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings. It is the case of the Assessee that the Assessee has very good case on merits and relied on certain documents before us. Admittedly those documents were not produced before the authorities below. Considering the fact that the assessment order has been passed ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has also not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de- novo assessment. The Assessee is at the liberty to produce any/all documents in support of his claim and A.O. shall verify the documents and frame the assessment order afresh. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law.
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 →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026