SMT. SITA DEVI,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-1(4), ALLAHABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee and did not decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution without proper opportunity for hearing. The CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits, relying solely on the Assessing Officer's findings.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and deciding the case on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Velu Palandar v. DCIT94 citing175 ITD 622 · 1972 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR
PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Allahabad, dated 6/4/2017 for assessment year 1998-99, taking the following grounds:
1. That in any view of the matter the assessment made on an income of Rs.1,51,150/- vide order dated 06-03-2006 passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the IT Act is bad both on the facts and in law.
2. That in any view of the matter substantial relief was allowed by the then CIT(A), Allahabad whose order was declared null & void based on CAT's Order and the succeeding CIT(A) held the addition which is totally incorrect when once the appeal has been decided and simply because preceding CIT(A)'s order became null & void that does not make the appeal liable to be dismissed, thus the addition so made is highly unjustified.
3. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.1,16,150/-out of undisclosed income u/s 69 of the Act as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is highly unjustified.
4. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.1,16,150/- as made by the Assessing Officer without examining the facts properly, hence the addition so made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) is highly unjustified. 5. That in any view of the matter the interest charged under different sections of the Act is highly unjustified.
2. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution, observing that since no specific submissions have been made by the assessee, there is no reason to interfere with the detailed finding given by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A), without dealing with the issues on merit, dismissed the appeal qua the assessee. Even in the impugned order, it is not find mentioned the service of any notice on the assessee. Such service of notices has, however, been disputed by the assessee.
3. Heard. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, he has not decided the appeal after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. In this view of the matter, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.) and ‘Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT’, 175 ITD 622 (Del)] and incumbent on the ld CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them.
4. In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/02/2020.
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 →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- 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
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026