MOHIT NANDAN AGARWAL,ALIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal found the assessee's irresponsive attitude unacceptable but, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a non-filer, deposited a significant cash amount in a bank account. The case was reopened, and despite multiple notices from the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), the assessee failed to respond, leading to an ex parte best judgment assessment and an ex parte dismissal of the first appeal.
What were the issues?
The key legal issues were the validity of an ex parte assessment and appellate order due to non-compliance by the assessee, and whether a fresh opportunity of hearing should be granted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
01.10.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10274681 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a non-filer for the assessment year 2018-19. On the basis of the information available with with SA No. 03 & 04/Agr/2025 the department, assessee was found to have deposited cash of Rs.79,86,000/- in his saving bank account with Syndicate Bank. The case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued. However, the assessee did not file any return of income in response thereof. Further, notices u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 were issued to the assessee, but remained un-responded. Hence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings on the basis of available record from the Canara Bank and HDFC Bank and assessed assessee’s total income at Rs.13,73,83,889/-.
Learned CIT(A) also confirmed the assessment order by dismissing the assessee’s first appeal ex parte.
Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground, in addition to others, that the learned CIT(A) has passed ex parte impugned order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Perused the records and heard learned representative for assessee and learned DR for revenue.
We find that the learned CIT(A) issued notices dated 25.07.2024, 19.09.2024, 13.03.2025, 20.03.2025, 21.04.2025 and 02.09.2025 to the assessee for making submissions before the first appellate authority.
Assessee either moved adjournments or remained un-responded during the first appellate proceedings. Learned CIT(A) was, therefore, 2 | P a g e with SA No. 03 & 04/Agr/2025 compelled to pass the impugned ex parte order. It is also noticed that the Assessing Officer has passed best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act for want of any response from the assessee. Such an irresponsive attitude of the assessee is not acceptable. However, in such circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant assessee to make his submissions before the Assessing Officer a fresh. The matter is thus remitted back to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer for passing order afresh in accordance with law after taking assessee’s submissions into consideration. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the proceedings and making submissions before the learned Assessing Officer for the expeditious and effective disposal.
Needless to say that learned Assessing Officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed for statistical proposes.
The two stay applications were filed in consequence of the aforesaid appeal with a prayer to stay the recovery. Since the impugned order has been set aside for statistical purposes and restored to the file of Assessing Officer, both the stay applications have become infructuous and are liable to be dismissed.
3 | P a g e with SA No. 03 & 04/Agr/2025
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.01.2026.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
