KAMAL,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE -1(4), SHAHJAHANPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for a hearing on merits, emphasizing the need for substantial justice. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions, failing which the NFAC could pass an ex-parte order.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed due to non-compliance. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, citing lack of opportunity and procedural errors. The ITAT noted the assessee's non-compliance but decided to grant one more opportunity.
What were the issues?
Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the NFAC for non-compliance was justified, and whether the assessee deserved another opportunity to present their case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed for the reason of non-compliance.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice.
2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard.
3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in upholding addition of Rs.33.30,000/- under section 69A of Income-tax Act, 1961 made by the Id. Assessing Officer.
4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order which is contrary to the facts and law.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal or raise any new ground appeal during the pendency of appeal.
None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.
Since the order passed by NFAC was an ex-parte order, the ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the NFAC.
I have heard the ld. Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that there was complete non-compliance on the part of the assessee during the course of first appellate proceedings. However, looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the NFAC with the direction to hear the appeal on merits. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the NFAC in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the NFAC shall be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/08/2024.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
