KCL STOCK BROKING LIMITED,THANE(W) MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), INDORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the case properly as per Section 250(6) and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's first appeal without making any submissions from the assessee, despite opportunities given.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) correctly adjudicated the appeal ex-parte without providing proper opportunity for hearing to the assessee. Whether the principles of natural justice were followed.
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 20.05.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.12.2017 passed by learned DCIT, Circle-3(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of Income- tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2010-11, the assessee has filed this appeal.
On hearing learned Representatives and on perusal of case records, it emerges that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite Page 1 of 2 KCL Stock Broking Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(1), Indore. opportunities given. It is further observed that the CIT(A) has simply refrained from making interference in the order of AO, thereby confirmed the order passed by AO and dismissed assessee’s first-appeal but the case of assessee requires an apt adjudication in terms of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by CIT(A). Therefore and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, it is thought fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent his case before CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be entitled to take an appropriate decision.
Resultantly, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 04.01.2024 immediately after conclusion of hearing and subsequently reduced in writing on the same day.
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 Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026