KAILASH JALAN,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH

ITA 383/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2018-193 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the case was apparently decided ex-parte by the CIT(A). It noted that despite numerous notices, no response or compliance was made by the assessee before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit. The Tribunal found this to be in violation of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee should not seek adjournments unless required for a valid and reasonable cause. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kailash Jalan, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee's counsel submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was based on a retracted statement, which is invalid without corroboration. The counsel further stated that the proceedings before the CIT(A) were decided ex-parte as the assessee failed to comply with various opportunities granted. The assessee requested that the issue be restored to the file of the CIT(A). The Revenue's counsel relied on the orders of the authorities below. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on a retracted statement, without corroboration, is valid? (Question of law and fact, relying on principles of evidence). 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without deciding the issues on merit is in violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's contentions: The addition made by the AO is wrong and baseless as it relies on a retracted statement, which is not valid evidence unless corroborated. The proceedings before the CIT(A) were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with opportunities, and the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GAUHATI BENCH’, GUWAHATI

Before: SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, AR

For Respondent: Shri Dipak Singh, DR

Hearing: 12.03.2026Pronounced: 13.03.2026

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Central NER, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 02.09.2025 for the AY 2018-19.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition has been made by the ld. AO on the basis of retracted statement which is wrong and has no basis as the retracted statement does not constitute a valid piece of evidences unless corroboration was done by the ld. AO. The ld. AR submitted that before the ld. CIT (A) the proceedings culminated ex-parte when the assessee failed to make any compliance on the various opportunities

The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We, after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, find that apparently the case was decided ex-parte by the ld. CIT (A). We note that despite numerous notices, none responded and made compliance before the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) passed an ex-parte order in limine without deciding the issues at merit, which in our opinion is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this appeal is restored to the file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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

Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →