SMITI VERMA,HAJIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), HAJIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 218/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 June 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was indeed ex-parte and did not decide the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision after providing a proper hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an assessment order, which included an addition of Rs. 15,15,000/- under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE, was dismissed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and no opportunity of being heard was provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH

For Appellant: Shri Shishir Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Mingma Sherpa, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.06.2026Pronounced: 04.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.218/PAT/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Smiti Verma Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Hajipur C/o Dr. Praveen Kumar, Poonam Bihar-844101 Surgery, RN College Road, Hajipur, Vaishali-844101 [PAN: AXCPV1459K] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Shishir Kumar, CA Respondent by : Shri Mingma Sherpa, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 01.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 04.06.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 27.01.2026passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making an addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act to the tune of Rs.15,15,000/-. As against the

ITA No.218/PAT/2026 Smiti Verma; A.Y: 2017-18 assessment order dated 16.12.2019, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.01.2026 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

3.

The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, sought for hearing the appeal.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has passed order impugned by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, with in accordance with law and the same requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. As it can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the order has been passedex-parte, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal urged by the assessee. In view of the same, we restore the first appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.218/PAT/2026 Smiti Verma; A.Y: 2017-18 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 04.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 04.06.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →