What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application, noting the simplicity of the issues. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and consider Rule 46A regarding fresh evidence.

The assessee filed appeals against ex parte orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17. The assessee did not appear for the hearing and filed an adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) were justified and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the provisions for admitting new evidence.

Rakesh Kumar vs ITO | ITAT Ranchi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR

Hearing: 09/07/2026Pronounced: 09/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 273 & 274/Ran/2026 (Assessment Year-2015-16 and 2016-17) Rakesh Kumar, I.T.O., Imam Kothi, Kokar, Ranchi-834001 Ward 2(1), Vs. (Jharkhand) Ranchi PAN No. AKSPK 0724 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by None, Adjournment Application filed. Department represented by Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR Date of hearing 09/07/2026 Date of pronouncement 09/07/2026

O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short, the ld. CIT(A) in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10154331 and NFAC/2015-16/10154335 both dated 03/03/2026 for the A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. None is represented on behalf of the assessee but Shri Sandipan Khan, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The assessee has filed adjournment application in both the appeals which reads as follows:

ITA 373 & 374/Ran/2025 Rakesh Kumar Vs ITO.

As it is noticed that the issues of these appeals are very simple, therefore, the adjournment application is being rejected and the appeals disposed off. 5. It is a fact that the orders of the ld. CIT(A) are ex parte orders of both the years. As it is noticed that the issues needs to be adjudicated on merits, therefore, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

ITA 373 & 374/Ran/2025 Rakesh Kumar Vs ITO. 6. Here it would worthwhile to mention specifically that the ld. CIT(A) shall consider the applicability of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, the Rules) in so far as if any evidences are produced by the assessee which are not been produced before the Assessing Officer, then the assessee shall have to give the explanation for non-production of such details as required in the provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules. If the ld. CIT(A) admits such fresh evidences then obviously the ld. CIT(A) could have to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer in so far as the principles of natural justice should be complied with even in respect of the Assessing Officer. With these directions, the issues in both the appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 09/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 09/07/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi

RAKESH KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD W2(1), RANCHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments