MADHAV KUMAR RAY,SAMASTIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), SAMASTIPUR, SAMASTIPUR

ITA 153/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 October 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both the order of the Assessing Officer and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) were ex-parte, with the assessee not participating in the proceedings. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided all the grounds of appeal on their merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The assessee was also directed to participate in the assessment proceedings without fail. No specific amount was in dispute, and the Tribunal did not decide any issue on merits, focusing on procedural fairness.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Madhav Kumar Ray, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the NFAC (Ld. CIT(A)) dated December 17, 2025. This order was passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was filed with a delay of 6 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The original assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on March 6, 2025, under Sections 147 read with 144B of the Act. The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed. The assessee then filed the present appeal before the ITAT against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting a decision on the merits of the assessee's grounds of appeal? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 147, 144B, and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: Both the AO's and Ld. CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to decide the grounds of appeal on merits, leading to a violation of natural justice. The appeal should be allowed. Revenue's contentions: The assessee is a chronic defaulter and did not appear before the lower authorities. Therefore, the orders passed by the AO and Ld. CIT(A) are in accordance with law and require no interference. The appeal should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA ‘SMC’ BENCH

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Abhi Sarkar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhusan Garg, CIT, DR on behalf of Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.10.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the orders of the NFAC, Delhi‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 17.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. There is a delay of 06 days in filing the present Appeal. Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the cause for the delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of Madhav Kumar Ray; A.Y: 2020-21 delay, the delay of 06 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order cam

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →