SH. D.P. SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the legal ground of reopening and that there was a dispute regarding the assessee's appearance. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee claimed to have been represented, but the CIT(A) noted no appearance and passed a non-speaking order. The CIT(A) also failed to adjudicate a legal issue regarding the validity of reopening the assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without a speaking order and without adjudicating the legal issue of reopening of assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.2.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)]. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the order of the CIT(A) dated 14.2.2017 and submitted the same is an ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that though the assessee was represented through his office before the CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned that no one had come present on behalf of the assessee and, hence, dismissed the appeal of the assessee after observing that there was no infirmity in the order of the Assessing officer in this case. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further
ITA No. 492/Chd/2018- Sh. D.P.Singal, Chandigarh 2
invited our attention to the grounds of appeal taken before the Ld. CIT(A)
to state that assessee had taken a legal issue regarding the validity of the
reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A),
even otherwise, failed to adjudicate upon that issue. That the appeal of
the assessee has been decided by the CIT(A) ex-parte by way of a non-
speaking order.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has invited our attention to the chart
mentioned in the order stating that the notices were served many a times to
the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A .
We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through
the records. It may be noted that though the assessee has claimed that he
had responded to the notices issued by the CIT(A) and had presented
himself through his counsel before the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A), however,
has written that despite notices, no one had come present on behalf of the
assessee. Even, the fact on the file is that though the Ld. CIT(A) had
proceeded to decide the case on merits ex-parte of the assessee, however,
he had failed to consider the legal ground regarding the reopening of the
assessment and passed a non-speaking order observing that he did not find
any infirmity in the order of the Assessing officer.
Considering the above submissions of both the Ld. representatives of
the parties, in our view, it will be appropriate to remand the matter back to
the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate it a fresh in accordance with law
after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing. Needless to say that
the assessee will present himself before the Ld. CIT(A) as and when called
for and will not contribute in unnecessary delay of the hearing of the
appeal.
ITA No. 492/Chd/2018- Sh. D.P.Singal, Chandigarh 3
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/- Sd/- (अ�नपूणा� गु�ता / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member Dated : 15.10.2018 “आर.के.”
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
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 →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026