PRATIGYA MADHAV,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), BHOPAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for proper adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution. The assessee claims to have filed an adjournment application which was not considered by the CIT(A). The original assessment order was also passed ex-parte under Section 144.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the adjournment application, and whether the matter should be re-adjudicated by the AO.
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
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 11.12.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 14.12.2019 passed by learned ITO, 1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal.
Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has passed impugned order ex-parte whereby the assessee’s first-appeal has been dismissed for Page 1 of 3 non-prosecution and the additions made by AO have been upheld. Ld. AR next carried us to Para 5.1 of impugned order according to which the CIT(A) issued three notices of hearings dated 11.01.2021, 08.11.2023 and 01.12.2023. The CIT(A) has noted that the assessee filed adjournment- application in response to first notice but did not make any response to later notices. Ld. AR, however, submitted a copy of the acknowledgement No. 544385931071223 downloaded from e-portal of Income-tax Department to show that the assessee filed adjournment-application on 07.12.2023 before 08.12.2023 i.e. the date of hearing fixed by last notice dated 01.12.2023 issued by CIT(A). He submitted that it seems that due to oversight, the CIT(A) could not take note of assessee’s application and passed ex-parte order. Ld. AR went further to submit that the AO’s order is also ex-parte u/s 144, therefore it would be more appropriate to re-store this matter at the level of AO for a proper adjudication. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is ready and willing to make representation before AO. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
In view of above and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we re-store this matter to the file of AO at the risk and responsibility of assessee. We direct the AO to make a proper adjudication on merit after giving necessary opportunity to assessee, uninfluenced by his earlier order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek
Page 2 of 3 unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 09.08.2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026