SACHI MOLDING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-2, SURAT, SURAT
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?
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.
More judgments on Section 201(1)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- 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