SHAILENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI,VIDHISHA vs. ITO, VIDHISHA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to remove the defects in the appeal filed before the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a bonafide mistake where penalty and rectification orders were attached instead of the assessment order. The assessee requested an opportunity to rectify this defect.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without affording an opportunity to rectify defects, and if the assessee should be granted a chance to cure the procedural error.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 21.09.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, for A.Y.2013-14. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1.The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the ex- parte order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled.
ITANo.106/Ind/2024 Shailendra Singh Raghuvanshi 2 The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order, ex- parte which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in treating the appeal as infructuous, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, without affording proper opportunity of being heard. 4 The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 71,53,000/- as unexplained money against cash deposits. 5 The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal
.”
2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse in limine by treating the same as defected. He has pointed out that the appeal was filed before the CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144 of the Act however, inadvertently the assessee has attached penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) as well as order passed u/s 154 of the Act with form No.35 instead of the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act. Due to this bonafide mistake the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal being defective. He has pleaded that the assessee be given one more opportunity to remove defects in the appeal filed before the CIT(A). Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal of the assesse on merits.
ITANo.106/Ind/2024 Shailendra Singh Raghuvanshi 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR has raised no objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after the defects being removed by the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order. The CIT(A) has pointed out in para 3 of the impugned order that in form no. 35 the assessee has attached the order passed u/s 154 as well as u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act instead of the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) though issued a defect /show cause notice to the assesse to remove the defects but there was no response on behalf of the assessee and consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed being defective. Ld. AR of the assesse has stated at bar that the assessee undertakes to remove the defects in the appeal filed before the CIT(A) as the same were due to bonafide mistake in filing the orders passed u/s 154 and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act instead of the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case when the appeal of the assesse was dismissed in limine, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee be granted one more opportunity to remove defects in the appeal filed before the CIT(A). Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving one more opportunity to the assesse to remove the defects in the appeal.
ITANo.106/Ind/2024 Shailendra Singh Raghuvanshi 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.08.2024.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
