SHRI KEDARESHWAR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,WARDHA ROAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A). A cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) for multiple assessment years despite being granted several opportunities. The assessee claimed mental trauma due to business losses as the reason for non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to alleged mental trauma warrants a fresh hearing, and if so, under what conditions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
Date of Hearing – 17/12/2024 Date of Order – 26/12/2024
O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.
These appeals by the assessee are against the impugned order dated 15/02/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15, 2015–16 and 2016–17
During the course of hearing, while going through the record, we find that the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A). Before us, the learned Authorised Representative appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee suffered huge losses in business, therefore, the assessee was in 2 Kedareshwar Builders and Developers mental trauma and due to ill–health, the assessee could not appear before the learned CIT(A) for the circumstances beyond his control.
The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the learned CIT(A) has granted five opportunities to the assessee to appear before the learned CIT(A), however, the assessee chose not appear.
We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is a fact that the learned CIT(A) has granted five opportunities to the assessee to appear before him. However, due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee for the reason that the assessee suffered huge losses and as a result of which the assessee was in mental trauma due to which the assessee could not appear before the learned CIT(A). Be that as it may. We are of the opinion that in the interest of justice and following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity is hereby granted to the assessee to substantiate the case before the learned CIT(A).
Given the assessee’s pattern of non-compliance and procedural delays, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost on the assessee of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for each appeal payable to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority and produce evidence of payment before the learned CIT(A). This cost underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and timely compliance during assessment and appellate proceedings.
3 Kedareshwar Builders and Developers
In view of the above, the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) for all the assessment years under consideration are set aside and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the appeals afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, subject to the condition that the assessee produces evidence of making payment of cost as stated above. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/12/2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026