MOHINDER SINGH,MALERKOTLA vs. ITO, W-1, MALERKOTLA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-appearance to be reasonable. To serve the interest of justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to present his case before the lower authorities.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was dismissed. The assessee claimed he was suffering from 'Depressive Psychosis', which led to non-compliance with notices and a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's failure to appear before the lower authorities due to medical reasons was a valid ground for condoning the delay and allowing a fresh opportunity for assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee
against the order dated 5.12.2017 of the Commissioner of Income
Tax(A)-2, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dismissing
the appeal of the assessee agitating therein the additions made by the
Assessing officer in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 144
/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dated
21.12.2016
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our
attention to the impugned orders of the lower authorities and has
submitted that the assessment order as well as the impugned order of
ITA No. 133/Chd/2018- Sh. Mohinder Singh, Malerkotla
2 the CIT(A) are ex-parte orders. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has
further invited our attention to the medical report of the assessee
placed at pages 50 to 67 of the paper book to submit that the
assessee has been suffering from ‘Depressive Psychosis’. He has
submitted that since the assessee was in the state of depression, he
did not accept the notices issued by the Assessing officer and further
that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) because
of this reason only. However, the Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the
delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, has submitted that the
assessee may be given opportunity to properly present his case before
the lower authorities.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the findings of
the Assessing officer.
We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the
assessee has reasonably explained his failure to appear before the
lower authorities. In our view, the interest of justice will be well
served if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case
before the lower authorities. Accordingly, the impugned order of the
Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the matter is restored to the file
of the Assessing officer for assessment afresh, in accordance with
law. The assessee is directed to appear promptly either personally or
though counsel as and when called for by the Assessing officer and
will furnish necessary details as may be required by the Assessing
officer for framing the assessment. Needless to say that the
ITA No. 133/Chd/2018- Sh. Mohinder Singh, Malerkotla
3 Assessing officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case. With the above observations the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01.08.20189
Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 01.08.2018 Rkk Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR
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 →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026