SACHI MOLDING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-2, SURAT, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1356/SRT/2024Status: HeardITAT Surat22 January 2026AY 2013-14Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant details and documents to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee failed to furnish explanations and replies despite being afforded opportunities. The assessee contended that no notice was received for proceedings under sections 201(1)/201(1A).

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and if the assessee was denied adequate opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

(Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sachi Molding Solutations Pvt. ITO, Vs. Ltd., TDS Ward – 2, Shed No.02, C-1/83, 100 Shed Surat Area, GIDC, Vapi – 396195, Tal – Pardi, Dist - Valsad [PAN: AADCS0403K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hiren Vepari, CA Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 O R D E R

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.11.2024, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

During the course of hearing, before us, the assessee submitted that no notice received at the time of proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A), and the ld. CIT(A) has also passed an ex-parte order.

3.

On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing given to the appellant, but the assessee failed to furnish requisite explanations and reply before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee as ex-parte. We also find that the assessee remained non-compliant before the Ld. CIT(A) and failed or furnish any documentary Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 2– evidence to substantiate his claim. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may be given, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the revenue authorities.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →