KALYANI SINGH, RANCHI,RANCHI vs. ITO , WARD 3(4), SASARAM, SASARAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that both the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were ex parte, and the assessee had failed to produce necessary details before the lower authorities. The assessee's representative claimed non-receipt of notices and requested another opportunity. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues of the assessment but rather the procedural aspect of granting a fair hearing. The ratio decidendi is that where lower authorities have passed ex parte orders and there is a plausible claim of non-receipt of notices, the matter should be remanded to provide an opportunity for a hearing on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Kalyani Singh, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Patna Bench, against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The dispute pertains to the order passed by the CIT(A) which was ex parte. The Assessing Officer's order was also ex parte. The assessee had failed to produce necessary details and documents before the lower authorities. The assessee's representative argued that the assessee had not received notices and requested another opportunity to present their case. Both the assessee and the revenue were absent during the hearing before the ITAT.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to substantiate their case before the CIT(A), considering the claim of non-receipt of notices and the ex parte nature of the lower authorities' orders? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that they had not received the notices from the lower authorities and therefore, sought another opportunity to present their case and substantiate their claims. The assessee relied on the principle of natural justice to argue for a fresh hearing. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue's side.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH PATNA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2016-17/10194769 dated 12/01/2026 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and None appeared on behalf of the revenue.
A perusal of the facts in the present appeal shows that both the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) are ex parte and the assessee failed to produce details/documents to substantiate his claim before the lower authorities. The ld. AR has prayed that another opp
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
