ZEENAT PARWEEN ANSARI,NEAR VIJAY TALKIES FIROZABAD vs. ITO 2.2.1 FIROZABAD, DABRAI, FIROZABAD

ITA 520/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 October 2026AY 2020-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee during the first appellate proceedings, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had sought revised computation of income and financial documents from the assessee, overlooking the fact that the assessee had filed a return based on presumptive income under Sections 44AD/44ADA. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in attending hearings and making submissions. The CIT(A) was directed to ensure observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the assessee, Zeenat Parween Ansari, against the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the CIT(A), Bhopal. The assessment year in question is 2020-21. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee's grounds of appeal to the ITAT state that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT, while the revenue was represented by the Sr. DR. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had requested revised computation of income and financial documents from the assessee, despite the assessee having filed a return showing presumptive income under sections 44AD/44ADA of the Act. The ITAT observed that adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee in the first appellate proceedings, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, 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) failed to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing before confirming the assessment order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 44AD,Section 44ADA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 14.10.2026Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10091764 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal/ ADDL/JCIT (A) BHOPAL [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2020-21, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

2.

Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground that ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3.

Perused the records. None responded for the appellant assessee. Heard ld Sr (DR) for the respondent revenue.

4.

It transpires from the perusal of records that after hearing th

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →