REHANA AKHTAR, ,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), BAREILLY

ITA 346/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 March 2026AY 2011-122 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Based on this finding, the Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(A). The issues in dispute were restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass a de novo speaking order on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative agreed with this course of action. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issues were left undecided, as the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rehana Akhtar, filed an appeal for assessment year 2011-12 against an appellate order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC. The assessee's grievance is that an ex parte assessment order was passed without a reasonable opportunity being provided. Consequently, the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed. The present appeal is before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). At the time of hearing before the ITAT, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Departmental Representative was heard, and the materials on record were perused.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, which is a question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice. Assessee's contentions: The assessee's core argument, as understood from the procedural history, is that a reasonable opportunity was not provided during the assessment proceedings, leading to an ex parte assessment order. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the learned Departmental Representative, was heard. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's arguments but notes their agreement with the Tribunal's proposed course of action.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

O R D E R (A) This appeal vide 2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 13.03.2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1074448600(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“JCIT(A)” for short].

(B) In this case, ex parte assessment order was passed without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(C) At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In absence any representation from assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative was heard and materials available on record were perused. However, on perusal of materials on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue, it is found, in the Assessment Year:2011-12 2 specific facts and circumstances of the case, that the assessee did not get reasonable opportunity during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to pass de novo speaking order on merits of the case in accordance with law; as regards the issues in dispute; after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative was in agreement with this.

(D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 12/03/2026)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →