RIZWANA FAROOQUE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and did not pass a speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for want of prosecution due to the assessee undergoing medical treatment. The CIT(A) order was a non-speaking order that did not adjudicate the issues on merit.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without a reasonable opportunity of hearing and whether the addition made under Section 69A was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma
Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member:- This appeal at the instance of assessee for assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.12.2022, which is arising out of the order under section 143(3) of 1 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rizwana Farooque the Act dated 14.11.2019 framed by ITO, Ward-32(2), Kolkata.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- (1) For that the Ld. CIT (Appeal) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex-parte order without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing.
(2) For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.22,06,500/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. We find that the ld. 1st Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merit. From the record, we find that the assessee has submitted through affidavit dated 06.04.2023 that he was undergoing some medical treatment and, therefore, was unable to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and requested to send back the matter to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. Sub-section (6) of section 250 contemplates that ld. CIT(Appeals) would determine the points in dispute and thereafter records the reasons in support of his conclusion on those points. A perusal of the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) would reveal that it is a non-speaking order, which does not deal with any of the issues agitated in the grounds of appeal before CIT(A) or Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rizwana Farooque issues taken up in the assessment order. Therefore, we allow this appeal for statistical purposes, set aside the impugned order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the issues to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026