ARUN PRATAP SINGH KUSHWAH,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1),GWALIOR, GWALIOR

ITA 600/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 September 2026AY 2024-253 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-cooperative conduct and failure to respond to multiple notices from the CIT(A) were noted and not appreciated, the assessment order itself was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment in accordance with the law. The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal should be allowed for statistical purposes. The operative direction is to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the AO for fresh assessment. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Arun Pratap Singh Kushwah, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench, against an order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The assessment year in question is 2024-25. The assessee contended that the NFAC passed the order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The records indicated that the NFAC had issued several notices to the assessee, to which the assessee did not respond. Consequently, the NFAC was compelled to pass an ex-parte order. The assessment order itself was also passed ex-parte by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without providing a proper opportunity of hearing, which is a violation of due process. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the learned Departmental Representative, implicitly supported the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order by highlighting the assessee's non-compliance with multiple notices issued by the first appellate authority. The revenue did not explicitly present a counter-argument to the assessee's claim of no proper opportunity, but the facts presented by the Tribunal indicate the revenue's position that the assessee's conduct necessitated the ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Sehgal, Adv

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. (DR)

Hearing: 15.09.2026Pronounced: 15.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 600/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2024-25 Arun Pratap Singh Kushwah, Vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Aayakar Bhawan, City Center, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Tulsi Vihar Colony, Gwalior- Tulsi Vihar Colony, Gwalior- 474003 474001 PAN: BVTPK6254R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prateek Sehgal, Adv. Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. (DR) Date of hearing 15.09.2026 Date of pronouncement 15.09.2026 ORDER PER: BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.06.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2023-24/10562279 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

ITA No.600/Agr/2026

referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2024-25, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte. 2. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the various grounds including the one that ld. CIT(A) has passed confirmed the assessment order without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Adjournment application moved on behalf of the appellant assessee stood rejected. We have perused the records and heard ld. representatives for the parties. 4. It transpires form the perusal of records that various notices dated 27.02.2026, 06.03.2026, 07.03.2026 and 04.06.2026 were issued by the first appellate authority to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond in compliance thereof. The ld. CIT(A) was thus compelled to pass impugned order ex-parte. The non-cooperative conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. Further, we also note that the assessment order in this case was also passed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of ld. AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.600/Agr/2026

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on - 15.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 30.09.2026 *aks, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

3 | P a g e

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →