Loading judgment…
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).
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
201(1), 201(1A), 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
(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:
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.
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.
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.