KOVID AMBODIYA,UJJAIN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER W1(1), UJJAIN

ITA 826/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kovid Ambodiya, the appellant, who filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) concerning a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The tribunal noted that the appeal was incorrectly filed against an assessment order rather than the penalty order itself. The appellant did not appear at the hearing, nor did they file for adjournment, leading the tribunal to proceed ex-parte. The tribunal dismissed the appeal due to procedural errors and the lack of substantive representation or argument from the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822543 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORREVENUERESPONDENTISAVAILABLE.THEREFORE; THISAPPEALISBEING; FORREVENUERESPONDENT; SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Section: 144; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 8 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.826/Ind/2024 (Assessment Year:2009-10) Kovid Ambodiya, 40, Kajiwada, Nikas Chouraha, Ujjain बनाम/ Vs. ITO 1(1) Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AMHPA5057A Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.12.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal bearing DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069169300(1) dated 27.09.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2009-10, the assessee has filed this appeal. 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee/appellant when the case is called for hearing nor any application for adjournment is filed. However, Ld. DR for revenue/respondent is available. Therefore, this appeal is being Printed from counselvise.com Kovid Ambodiya ITA No. 826/Ind/2024 - AY 2009-10 Page 2 of 8 disposed of ex-parte to assessee after considering the documents available in case file and hearing Ld. DR for revenue/respondent. 3. We re-produce below the document filed by assessee in this appeal: Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo) – Page 2 to 4: Printed from counselvise.com Kovid Ambodiya ITA No. 826/Ind/2024 - AY 2009-10 Page 3 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com Kovid Ambodiya ITA No. 826/Ind/2024 - AY 2009-10 Page 4 of 8 Grounds of Appeal: Printed from counselvise.com Kovid Ambodiya ITA No. 826/Ind/2024 - AY 2009-10 Page 5 of 8 Statement of Facts: Printed from counselvise.com Kovid Ambodiya ITA No. 826/Ind/2024 - AY 2009-10 Page 6 of 8 CIT(A)’s order – Page 1: Printed from counselvise.com Kovid Ambodiya ITA No. 826/Ind/2024 - AY 2009-10 Page 7 of 8 4. On perusal of above documents, we find that the assessee has filed unsigned/unverified Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo). Further, in Column Nos. 6 & 7 of Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo), the assessee has mentioned the details of assessment-order passed by AO u/s 144 and in next Column No. 8, the assessee has mentioned “NA” against “If appeal relates to any penalty”. Further, in “Grounds of Appeal”, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 24,66,600/- made u/s 69A by AO in assessment-order, there is no challenge to penalty-order passed by AO. Further, in “Statement of Facts”, the assessee has stated all facts relating to assessment and there is no whisper of penalty-order. Further, the assessee has e-filed copy of assessment-order and not the copy of penalty-order. Thus, as per Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo), Ground of Appeal, Statement of Facts and Assessment- order filed to ITAT, the assessee is assailing the “assessment-order” passed by AO whereas the first-appeal disposed of by Ld. CIT(A) through impugned order was preferred by assessee against “penalty-order” passed by AO. This is clearly mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) in first sentence of impugned order re- produced above as also in the operative para 6 of impugned order. Thus, the impugned order relates to a “penalty-matter” u/s 271(1)(c) whereas the present-appeal has been filed against “assessment-order”. Therefore, the present appeal filed by assessee is seriously defective and non-maintainable. Furthermore, there was a non-representation by assessee before both of the lower authorities i.e. the AO & CIT(A) and there is also a non-representation before us. Consequently, upon finding the grave defects as discussed, we Printed from counselvise.com Kovid Ambodiya ITA No. 826/Ind/2024 - AY 2009-10 Page 8 of 8 dismiss this appeal in limine. As a consequence, no adjudication on merit is required from us. The assessee is, however, at liberty to file a fresh appeal or file M/A u/s 254(2), if advised. 5. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced by putting up on notice board in terms of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 22/12/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 22/12/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Printed from counselvise.com "