Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee sought to represent their case on merits.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating on the grounds of appeal and if the assessee should be given another opportunity to represent their case.
Sections Cited
250, 143(2), 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H (SMC
Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAVSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
Date of Hearing – 20/11/2025 Date of Order - 21/11/2025
O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 28/03/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurugram, [“learned Addl./Joint CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18.
In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “
1. The Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appellants appeal vide an ex-parte appellate order dated 28/03/2025.
2. The Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in passing an order, without having adjudicated upon all the grounds of appeal particularly the additional grounds of appeals.
3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed by the ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan, without appreciating the law that ITO Ward 3(4), Kalyan, had initiated the proceedings vide notice u/s. 143(2) of the LT. Act, 1961, dated 25/09/2018 without having valid jurisdiction over the appellants case thereby making not only the very initiation of proceedings but even the consequential assessment order passed untenable in the eyes of law.
4. The Hon'ble CTT (A) has erred upholding the order passed by ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan without appreciating the law that even he ought to have issued a fresh notice u/s. 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961, after the case having got transferred to him and before completion of the passing an Assessing order.
The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not granting relief to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/-on the basis of the directions issued by CBDT vide Instruction No. 03/2017, dated 21/12/2017.
The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs 7,80,500/- made by the Ld. Assessing officer treating the same as unexplained money w/s.69A of the I.T. Act, 1961, merely, on the basis of assumptions, presumptions and surmises.
The Hon CIT(A) has erred in passing the order, without adjudicating upon additional ground challenging the action of Ld. Assessing officer of taxing an amount of Rs 7,80,500/- @ 60%, as per amended provision of sec 115 BBE of the I.T .Act, 1961, without appreciating without appreciating the facts and the law that the Second Amendment Act 2016, has received the assent of the Hon'ble president on the 15th December, 2016 and as such the tax rate of 60% would be applicable only on the income earned by appellant, if any, on or after 15th of December, 2016.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or vary any of the grounds at the time before the hearing of the appeal.
The appellant therefore prays that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by Hon'ble CIT (A) without appreciating the facts of the case in totality as well as law the same, not being in accordance with the provisions of law deserves to be and may please be deleted and/or alternatively be sent back to the office of JAO with a direction to verify the facts of case and adjudicate afresh.”
3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-compliance of the notices of hearing by the assessee. Now in the present appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) and wishes to pursue the litigation against the Siraz Yar Mohammad Khan addition made by the AO. Further, the learned AR also undertook that if the appeal is restored to the file of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee will comply with all notices as may be issued. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, the assessee be hereby granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits after consideration of all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to furnish/update his email address in the records before the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) so that the hearing notice(s) are sent to the operational email address. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/11/2025