V. MANIKANDAN,TUTICORIN vs. ITO, WARD - 3, TUTICORIN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to avail opportunities, the CIT(A) is duty-bound to pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) solely on the ground of non-appearance, without adjudicating the issue on merits. The assessee argued that this violated principles of natural justice and the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a speaking order on merits, despite the assessee's non-appearance. Whether the dismissal violated principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE- & SHRI G.MANJUNATHA
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23 / 1047507957(1) dated 18.11.2022. The assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Tuticorin for relevant assessment year 2017-18 u/s. 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) vide order dated 21.12.2018.
At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to ground no.3 which reads as under:-
“The CIT(A) erred in confirming the Order of the AO, u/s 154 of the act without providing proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is mandatory requirement for passing an order u/s 154(3), which therefore, violated the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act.
The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has dismissed appeal solely on the ground of non- appearance and without adjudicating the issue on merits. The learned counsel for the assessee took us through order of the CIT(A) and she drew our attention to final findings of the CIT(A), which reads as under:-
“Hence in view of the above and on the basis of detailed findings and reasons given by the A.O in his assessment order, I uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The appeal on this ground is accordingly dismissed.”
She argued that the CIT(A) is simplicitor, confirmed the order without speaking even a word on merits of the assessee’s case, despite fact that entire facts were narrated in statement of facts filed before the CIT(A). But, when it was pointed out to learned counsel for the assessee that the CIT(A) has allowed five opportunities, which is noted in the order of the CIT(A), the assessee should have availed the opportunity, which he failed miserably. When these facts were confronted to Ld. Senior DR, he stated that there is default on the part of the assessee in not attending hearings, despite many notices were served on him.
After hearing both the sides on the issue of natural justice and non-speaking order or order passed for non-appearance, we noted that although, the CIT(A) has provided five opportunities, which were not availed by the assessee, but the CIT(A) is duty bound to pass speaking order on merits. Hence, we set aside order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for passing a speaking order on the issue, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee will also pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
In view of the above, and subject to the above condition that the assessee will pay cost of Rs.5,000/-, the matter is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A). Needless to say that the assessee will provide all the details at the first instance before the CIT(A), who will decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026