SUNIL MOOLCHANDANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's inability to make an effective representation due to financial constraints and the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed two appeals challenging ex-parte orders from the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14 and an order on merit without considering evidence for AY 2015-16. The assessee cited financial difficulties for non-representation before the AO.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) orders were passed without proper consideration of evidence and opportunity to the assessee, and if remand to the AO is appropriate for fresh adjudication.
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.:
These are the two appeals filed by assessee. The first appeal, being challenges the appeal-order dated 21.07.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 28.03.2016 passed by learned ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14. The second appeal, being 06.09.2023 passed by learned CIT(A) which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated
Shri Sunil Moolchandani, Bhopal & 430/Ind/2023 - AY 2013-14 and 2015-16 07.11.2017 passed by learned DCIT, 1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s.
143(3) of the Act for AY 2015-16.
Learned Representatives of both sides are ad idem that the impugned order involved in of AY 2013-14 is passed by CIT(A) as ex-parte for non-prosecution by assessee wherein the CIT(A) has merely upheld the additions made by assessee and not resolved the issues appropriately. And the impugned order involved in of AY 2015-16 has been passed by CIT(A) on merit but without considering the evidences filed by assessee before CIT(A) and the assessment-order involved therein was also passed by AO as ex-parte u/s 144 due to non-submission of complete details by assessee. Ld. AR submits that the assessee was not in a position to make effective representation in these matters before AO because of several financial crunch leading to matters filed against assessee u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the assessee is now in position to file the required details/documents to AO. Therefore, it is prayed that these matters may be remanded to AO for an apt adjudication after considering the details/documents to be filed by assessee. Ld. DR does not have any objection to the prayer of assessee but, however, makes a request to direct the assessee to ensure participation before AO and make representation without seeking unnecessary adjournments. In view of this and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand these matters to the file of AO for an apt adjudication after giving opportunity to assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure
Shri Sunil Moolchandani, Bhopal & 430/Ind/2023 - AY 2013-14 and 2015-16 participation in the hearings fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 03.04.2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026