What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the assessee's submissions and failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order was set aside.

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2019-20, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,09,78,527/-. The assessee claimed that extensive written submissions were filed but not considered by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and whether the order was non-speaking and unsustainable in law.

Mukesh Kumar, Mandi Gobindgarh vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gera, Advocate

Hearing: 16.04.2026Pronounced: 27.04.2026

PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (Appeals)’] dated 22.09.2025 passed for assessment year 2019-20. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with Rule 8 of the ITAT Rules. They are descriptive and argumentative in nature.

ITA -1502/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 2

The assessee has taken ten grounds of appeal, however, his grievances revolve around two issues, namely, ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,09,78,527/- by way of ex-parte order. In his second fold of grievance, assessee has submitted that neither the AO nor the ld.CIT (Appeals) has appreciated the written submissions filed by him and passed non-speaking orders which are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the impugned order of the ld.CIT (Appeals) would reveal that ld.CIT (Appeals) has observed that assessee did not submit any detail in support of its pleadings before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, he has confirmed the assessment order. On the other hand, it has been pleaded in the grounds of appeal that assessee has submitted a written submission running into 113 pages which was acknowledged vide Acknowledgement No. 696852251190825 on 19.08.2025. This submission has not been considered by the CIT (Appeals).

ITA -1502/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 3

It is pertinent to note that sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that CIT (Appeals) would state the points in dispute and thereafter assign reasons in support of her conclusion. In the impugned order, ld. First Appellate Authority has failed to adhere this mandatory procedure. The ld.CIT (Appeals) did not call for the record of the assessment and decided the issue on merit, rather summarily rejected the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. We set aside the impugned order and restore these issues to the file of CIT (Appeals). The ld.CIT (Appeals) is directed to decide the present appeal within six months from the receipt of this order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

With the above terms, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 27th April,2026. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam”

ITA -1502/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 4

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

""थ"/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 3. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT,

CHANDIGARH गाड" फाईल/ Guard File 5. सहायक पंजीकार/

MUKESH KUMAR,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ITO, SIRHIND

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments