BINOD BARUAH,TINSUKIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

ITA 433/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2022-233 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit, which was a violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that despite numerous notices, no one responded or complied before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte decision. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A). The direction was to decide the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee should not seek adjournments unless for a valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Binod Baruah, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] dated 30.10.205 for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee's counsel submitted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. The assessee requested that the matter be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The Revenue's representative did not oppose this request. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the case ex-parte without a decision on merits, despite numerous notices, which was considered a violation of Section 250(6) of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed for the issue to be restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not oppose the assessee's prayer for restoration.

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: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, AR

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, DR

Hearing: 09.03.2026Pronounced: 13.03.2026

PER BENCH:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Central NER, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 30.102.205 for the AY 2022-23. 2. At the outset, the Id. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Id. CIT (A) has passed an ex-parte order. The Id. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that the issue may kindly be restored to the file of the Id. CIT (A), so that issue could be decided on merit

afresh. Binod Baruah; AY 2022-23

The Id. DR on the other hand did not oppose the counsel of the assessee,

We, after hearing the submission of

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 account Sign 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →