SENGOTTAIYAN KAVITHA ,NAMAKKAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex parte and passed without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte as she did not respond to notices, and the assessment order was also passed ex parte by the AO. The assessee claimed she was on medical leave due to gynecological issues and child delivery, and that notices were sent to a wrong email ID.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex parte assessment and appellate orders, passed without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard due to reasons beyond her control, are valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Tin Box Company v. CIT624 citing249 ITR 216 · 2001 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 27.02.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2010-11.
The main grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order since the assessee didn’t respond to his ‘four’
(AY 2010-11) Sengottaiyan Kavitha :: 2 :: notices; and it was also pointed out by the Ld.AR that Assessment Order in this case was also passed ex parte, qua assessee. Therefore, he pleads by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Company v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) that since assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO, the assessment may be restored back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.
Per contra, the Ld.DR opposed the request of the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order and that also without going into the merits of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Likewise, the Assessment Order has also been passed on 27.11.2018 u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”) meaning best judgment assessment was framed by the AO. Thus, it is noted that the Assessment Order as well as impugned order are ex parte orders. From perusal of Form 35 & Form 36, we note that the assessee is a Physics Lecturer in Pavai Engineering College near Namakkal; and that she was on Medical Leave during assessment proceedings. The assessee had gynec related problems, after the delivery of a child on 02.10.2017 and was consequently on Medical Leave from college on loss of pay; and she suffered abortion on 19.01.2019, and therefore, due to poor health,
(AY 2010-11) Sengottaiyan Kavitha :: 3 :: assessee couldn’t appear before the AO which resulted in AO passing the best judgment assessment, and the Ld.CIT(A), noticing no response from assessee, has dismissed the appeal, without going into the merits of the appeal. The Ld.AR brought to our notice that notices from Office of Ld.CIT(A) were sent on wrong e-mail ID, which resulted in assessee not knowing about such notices. Be that as it may, since, we find that the Assessment Order has been passed by the AO without hearing the assessee due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee, we relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Company (supra), set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.
The Ld.AR undertakes to diligently appear /present the case/written submissions/documents to substantiate the case of the assessee and the AO to pass de novo Assessment Order in accordance to law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 10th day of July, 2024, in Chennai.
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. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
