PREETI KAMAL KOTHARI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay without considering the COVID-19 exclusion period. The assessee also claimed a lack of opportunity to be heard and an addition on account of unexplained expenditure.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without considering the COVID-19 exclusion period and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO
This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 23/08/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018–19.
In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–
“1. That the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad-in-law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in filing appeal without considering the fact that, the delay period fell within COVID-19 period which was excluded by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2 Preeti Kamal Kothari 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard before dismissing the appeal. 4. The learned AO erred in making an addition on account of alleged unexplained expenditure u/s 69C to the tune of Rs.9,99,794/- and learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the same on merits. 5. The Appellant prays leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to add, amend, alter any of the Grounds of Appeal.”
3. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned A.R. appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one opportunity may be granted by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to enable the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).
2. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assesse, however, the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).
3. I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. I find that though the learned CIT(A) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate the case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also 3 Preeti Kamal Kothari 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, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/12/2024
More judgments on Section 69C
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mritunjay Singh, Kudra vs AO, SasaramITA 454/PAT/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Shantilal Mafaji Kachchhava, Banaskantha vs ITO WD 1 Palanpur, PalanpurITA 2256/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Madhusudhan Gade, Nizamabad vs ITO., Ward-1, NizamabadITA 379/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026